Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2016 CUOS appointments

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2016 CUOS appointments page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Must be an admin?

I still disagree with this. The requirement for an RfA or RfA-like process is still not codified in any relevant policy, and one could certainly argue that the public comment period qualifies as an RfA-like process. That said, I don't particularly see any need for non-admins to be CUs or OSs, but I would prefer it to be based on community policy rather than word-of-mouth from someone who no longer works for the Foundation. Relevant reading at m:CU and m:OS for the criteria under which stewards assign the rights. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If memory serves, the "must have passed an RfA or RfA-like process" requirement for deletedtext has been re-emphasized a while ago on the village pump by another WMF employee, but I am not sure. That's for Oversight only (Special:ListGroupRights says that Oversighters have that permission), ~~but it doesn't apply to CheckUser~~ (and the French Wikipedia has one non-admin checkuser, appointed by their ArbCom if memory serves). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if there is a discrepancy between the word-of-mouth from some random WMF employee, compared with the policies established by the WMF Board in consultation with the community, I'd go with the latter any day. And there are all sorts of admins across Wikimedia who have access to "deletedtext" without going through an RfA or RfA-like process; for example, Wikiversity gives out probationary adminship under a mentor before the actual RfA happens. And you are correct that non-admin CUs have been appointed, and will continue to be as their appointment violates no actual policies. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the "community consultation" would satisfy that WMF requirement, as an aside. Probably worth asking another time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

eta: Seems like local CheckUsers have deletedtext as well, and so do the frenchwiki ones. So the WMF request would apply to both CheckUser groups as well. I'll ask about this once I've found where to. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, tried it here, also asking for a documentation of such a policy if it exists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really, the way to force the question would be to point to specific non-admin functionaries on other wikis, where the appointment is by ArbCom. I would have to go back through notes, but frwiki and nlwiki would come to mind (ruwiki requires their functionaries to be ex-arbs besides admins). I want to say that there's wikis where ArbCom does the appointing and where non-admins are given the flag automatically by crats too, which would fail this requirement.

Not to mention several wikis where the crats have just handed out the admin flag to whomever they please or where the RFA would fail this requirement, i.e. en.wikiversity, sh.wiktionary, yi.wiktionary are the ones that come to mind there. To be blunt, I think that this "policy" is only enforced on enwiki, and only because of its prominence, the prominence of its ArbCom, WMF not knowing 90% of what goes on on other language wikis, and its working relationship with WMF (not that the latter is a bad thing, it certainly is a good thing overall). --Rs chen 7754 18:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rschen and I have both spoken on this before... I've also asked James recently, but got somewhat of a non-answer that yes, the "policy" was in effect but basically all current practices conform. Which didn't make much sense to me. I think my point here is mainly to say that some opinion from WMF staff doesn't overrule global policy established by the Board, which allows non-admins to be CU/OSs, and that if the WMF has a problem with it then their board should enact some sort of written policy change in consultation with the community, while providing a valid rationale as to why existing practices are wrong. In the mean time, I can say with some confidence that stewards (the ones who physically assign CU and OS rights) would not decline a request which met global policy. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Viewing deleted content is what you're looking for I think. Besides, using CU/OS without admin rights is very disfunctional (OS more than CU). CUs usually have to block socks and IPs. OS sometimes have to block accounts hidding them from the public. If the non-CU/OS has to continuously ask for their work to be done for others that'd not be okay IMHO. MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not so sure about this. There is no requirement for a CU to execute the blocks themselves - in fact I know that the German Wikipedia specifically discourages this, and even here patrolling admins or clerks can and do frequently act on the results of a checkuser. I am not sure whether ACC (which is one of the processes that need CU, according to the main page here) needs admin tools at all in conjunction to checkuser. Are oversigh blocks really that frequent relative to the number of oversightings? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are a tiny number of blocks that are done as oversight blocks. One a month is probably at the top end. -- GB fan 11:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It still sounds like too many Oversighters are gettig blocked. How can we reduce that number? _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To begin with no oversighters are getting blocked. Editors are blocked for oversight reasons. If there is one in a month that is on the far end. Most months there are 0 oversight block. -- GB fan 12:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right! _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That page is descriptive, not prescriptive MA. It only describes past sayings by random WMF staffers. I'm looking for a community established policy here. And like I said, this entire thing is without prejudice as to whether or not non-admin CU/OS make sense - on Wikidata we outlawed them by community vote and I stand by that. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anticipating this question, we contacted the WMF yesterday to clarify their position on this :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response has been given: overall we're ok with non-admins being appointed by arbcom to CU/OS in the current system. The important part here is a good method of vetting and in this case we feel that happens both in the feedback garnered from the community and the arbcom's own election process where they become representatives of the community in this regard. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking them, and that's a much more straightforward response than they have given in the past! Like I said above, this was never meant to be a clear statement that "non-admin CU/OS would be useful", but rather I think policy should be based on community consensus rather than the musings of WMF staff. So, if the admin-only requirement is to remain included, I think it would be good to have it either passed by motion through ArbCom or (preferably) taken to the community as an RfC to approve. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]