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 @MarcoAurelio:. It only describes past sayings by random WMF staffers. I'm looking for a community established policy here, and I already know that there is none. 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]
If that RfC gave the two usergroups all the tools they needed then I'd have absolutely no issues with non-admin functionaries, until that happens non-admin functionaries wouldn't be able to effectively do the job so I can't see myself supporting one being appointed. I'd be thinking the following tools:
CHECKUSERS: block, blockemail as CheckUsers need to be able to block IPs and accounts they find using the tools. Jo-Jo's point above about CheckUsers not needing to block is incorrect, as they definitely need to be able to block IP addresses they find are being used by accounts. They also need to be able to block accounts where they can't share the reason (the function of {{checkuserblock-account}}), likewise there are certain masters where disabling email on socks is standard. I haven't included globalblock-whitelist as this will likely need discussion and isn't directly related to a CU's function. My thinking is also that CUs can request G5 deletions and protections as these won't require specialist or private knowledge.

OVERSIGHTERS: delete, undelete, flow-delete as there are times which a request doesn't need suppression but does need to be deleted but shouldn't be advertised publicly. protect as Oversighters sometimes need to protect pages where they've needed to suppress revisions. It isn't appropriate to request publicly as they wouldn't be able to say why the protection is needed. block as, while Oversighters don't block regularly, they still need to have the ability to complete all functions of the role.
Of course this creates issues where the community will need to decide whether these functionaries with admin tools can use them only as a part of their role or generally, but that can be part of the same role. Disclaimer: I'm not speaking on behalf of the Committee. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Callanecc on this issue for all of the reasons they have given. In addition, I do not believe that a 15-person arbitration committee is the equivalent of the community review given at RFA, but this is essentially giving people admin tools without that community review. I really do not think Arbcom should have the ability to hand out the most critical of administrator tools by itself. I will note that this is a pretty radical departure from the WMF's position in the past. I'm the first person to say that RFA is a pretty horrible process, and I think a lot of good candidates get declined for spurious reasons, but it is the one place where a thorough review of editor activity and behaviour is made. I was actively involved in five years of selecting OS and CU, and I know there is good reason to feel that some members of Arbcom are notably less thorough in their review of candidates than even the cursory reviews that many editors give RFA candidates. I have absolutely no reason to think this has changed since I was on Arbcom. End of the day, the "admin" functions utilized by non-admin CU/OS will have to be scrutinized constantly to ensure that they are not using it for unrelated issues (e.g., they have actually CU'd the accounts they are blocking, or deleted only pages that have a matching OS request), and that will add workload to the rest of the functionary teams, who will be the only ones able to identify and issues, and additional "human resources management" issues to Arbcom if any non-admin oversteps. Risker (talk) 03:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]