Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2013 CUOS appointments

Unbundling
Type of thing that needs to be separated from admins only. Would love to help with Oversight but have no interest in adminship.Moxy (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a limitation . L Faraone  23:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

In my non legal opinion the argument that one must go through the RFA process to get access to deleted materials is complete and utter bullshit for the following reasons: So in my opinion if the visibility of deleted content is so much of a big deal, then it should be upmerged to a higher level of access. I say all this not expecting to change anyones mind but to simply point out, once again, that the WMF doesn't seem to have a grasp on reality in relation to things on Wiki and their statements in that discussion linked above shows their knowledge of how things work on wiki isn't up to par. Kumioko (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Check user and oversight both require the user to inform the WMF of their real life identity, adminship does not.
 * 2) The checkuser/oversight process have a voting process just like RFA. So if one can pass thought the Checkuser/Oversight voting process that is exactly like passing through RFA.
 * 3) The checkuser and oversight right require the user to be over 18 (i.e. legal age) and the RFA process does not.


 * Kumioko: I basically agree that the requirement is complete nonsense, for all of those reasons, but at the same time I've always accepted that we have to submit to the Foundation lawyers' instructions on this one. AGK  [•] 14:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Number of positions to be filled?
How many new checkusers and oversighters are being sought? It helps to know before offering support or opposition. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  21:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  00:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  02:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Right now, it looks like there is no set number, so it will be as many as receive sufficient support among the Committee to be appointed. NW ( Talk ) 23:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much.
 * You should run Berean, I'll vote for you and I am sure a lot of others would too. Kumioko (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it's a tad late to start now. :( Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah well maybe next year. Someone should poke User:SarahStierch when the time comes too. Kumioko (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the vote of confidence. :) I haven't been around enough the last few months and trying to work back into it more. I'm not sure that I would be able to offer them anything towards Asian ISPs (私は理解していません - Watashi wa rikai shite imasen.) Also, this set of candidates are of the finest sort. I'm actually a little worried that we could lose really good folk from SPI clerking...the CUs got some of our best clerks like DeltaQuad and DoRD a while back and now we could lose some more. As long as our system is working though, I'm happy.
 * I understand, Id help out there if I could. Kumioko (talk) 03:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Notice of likely delay
To the candidates (Echo mentions follow):

User:Ks0stm, User:LFaraone, User:Materialscientist, User:NativeForeigner, User:Reaper Eternal, User:Rschen7754, User:DoRD, User:Elockid, User:GorillaWarfare, User:Guerillero, and User:Julia W.

As I have noted [ here], due to the co-occurence of our final votes for this process with the PD votes for two open cases, our announcement will not be published for at least another couple of days. We're sorry for this delay.

Please remember to watch your e-mail inboxes carefully over the next few days. When our decision is made, if your candidacy is successful you will be asked to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation at short notice. The sooner you do so, the sooner you will receive your permissions. And again, I apologise that you will not know the outcome of your candidacies on the day we hoped you would.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK  [•] 12:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have no problem with identifying now, or you anticipate that you might need to do so in the future regardless of how this CUOS request turns out, I'm fairly sure that User:Philippe (WMF) wouldn't mind processing it now. At least he didn't for me back in 2011; I don't know if that has changed since. See Identification noticeboard for more details. NW ( Talk ) 12:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * He doesn't mind at all. :-)  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've actually been identified for almost a year now for ACC access. Thanks for the note, though. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)