Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/2014 appointments

"The formal vetting phase and the lengthy questionnaire has been abolished"
The process says that "eligible" candidates will be put forward to the community. As there are no qualifications at all identified in the call for nominations, will the arbitrators be automatically passing through every individual who submits an application? What would make someone not eligible? Risker (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There is still a basic vetting process, removing the obvious users who would not be eligible - for example, banned editors. Otherwise, we're trying to move the process more towards community comment. Worm TT( talk ) 09:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please list the eligibility/non-eligibility criteria, and make them clear. Are they the same as for arbitrator? Do they require adminship?  (Unless you're going to have an actual vote for AUSC membership by the community, candidates probably have to be admins.) Minimum number of edits?  "In good standing" and not under any Arbcom sanctions?  Are you going to have on-arbwiki votes on who goes forward? (Incidentally, that's a formal vetting process...)  Please be more specific about these things. Right now the committee is coming across as capricious.  Risker (talk) 11:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * All administrators who wish to nominate will be presented for community comment. Only administrators are eligible. Is that clear enough for you? AGK  [•] 13:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you AGK. It's not me personally you need to be clear with, it's the potential candidates, so that individuals who don't meet minimal criteria don't waste their time (or anyone else's) applying.  Risker (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Small update on eligibility criteria
As always, candidates must be administrators in order to be appointed to the subcommittee. I have rewrote the front matter to explicitly state this (and to cut out much of the waffle that was in the years-old boilerplate appointments material). Thank you, AGK  [•] 13:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * To supplement AGK's comment, as I understand it, the fact that adminship is a prerequisite is a function of (1) Wikimedia Foundation policy governing what editors are eligible to be made privy to checkuser and oversight data, and (2) some technical limitations that impair the ability of the Oversight tool to be used by non-admins. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Questions to all candidates
I would like to put a question for all candidates, how and where am I supposed to do this? --Fæ (talk) 08:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You'll need to pose it individually to each candidate, on their nomination page. Worm TT( talk ) 08:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Support for non-functionaries
This appointment process has always seemed opaque to me, it's never been clear how much bearing (if any at all) these community comments have on who is appointed. From memory, there have been several cases where editors who have a lot of endorsement at this point of the process don't get selected for AUSC and vice versa. That all said... for whatever it's worth, I'd like to call for at least one of those appointed to come from outside our established functionaries so they can bring some form of independence and fresh perspective. We have a great opportunity for that here, with three very solid non-functionary candidates. If I need to explicitly note this on each of nomination pages let me know, but I thought for a sort of blanket comment like this the talk page would be best. Jenks24 (talk) 11:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've seen your comment and I expect that other arbitrators have watchlisted this page as well. Thanks for your input. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As have I. Thank you for the input. NativeForeigner Talk 03:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)