Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2015 CUOS appointments

Application question
The nomination statement is made after the applicant receives the first questionnaire; is that right? Thus, the first e-mail is nothing more than asking for the questionnaire.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct. The first email is to ask for the questionnaire. (We keep a list of those who has asked for one, in order to contact applicants and make sure things don't get lost in the ether if we never get it back; asking for one carries absolutely no obligation to complete it.) The application statement is made with the questionnaire.  The statement is the only part of the application that will be shared outside the Arbitration Committee.  Application statements may be revised after vetting is complete, for publication on wiki, if candidates desire.  Candidates may also edit their application statement after it is published.  (The supervising arbitrators will create a page for each candidate, and publish the application statement on it.) Courcelles 02:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Just pointing out that according to WP:CU Checkusers are not required to be administrators. If this has changed that (and other pages) need to be updated. If not, I'm wondering why the announcement is worded to imply they must be administrators. 165.91.13.84 (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Checkusers don't technically have to be administrators (I think French Wikipedia has one), but for them to be selected, they must be elected through an RFA-like process. Since here, the ArbCom appoints functionaries, the WMF restricts us from appointing anyone who has not passed such a process. Courcelles 23:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Is there a link to that? Understanding is that that only applied to "access to deleted revisions", which CU doesn't provide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.13.25 (talk) 12:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , the WMF's Director of Community Advocacy, said it on WT:ACN in 2013. Also note that, per Special:ListGroupRights, the CU flag does provide access to deleted revisions on this project. Courcelles 17:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed although one could argue that there are other roles where the WMF has already provided this clearance. For example, a Steward has rights to see deleted revisions on all projects, including en.wiki, and therefore could conceivably be appointed a CU or OS here without being an administrator here. I'm not suggesting this is a good idea by the way, just noting it is hypothetically possible! QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Do we really need more editors with CU access? A Listusers inquiry turn up about 30-40 editors with access to the tool.  Also, on other Wikipedias the access is rotated from year to year.  VegasCasinoKid (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * See Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/Statistics for a much more accurate indication of how many people are actually doing the work. In December 2014, 21 flagged CU's did not run a single check.  21 (yes, I counted the right list) flagged OSers did not do a single suppression.  All Arbitrators and Auditors are included in that total, but many do not use the tools operationally, holding them only for review of other's actions.  The work is currently concentrated into some by moderately-active functionaries, and most in a few highly active hands.  It is my hope, that appointing new hands will solve the issues, especially with the time-sensitivity of Oversight. Courcelles 17:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Watchlist notice
Was going to advertise this on MediaWiki:Watchlist-details, but wanted to check with the coordinators first if there was any objection or special verbiage. — xaosflux  Talk 23:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Speaking for myself, no objection. If we need to modify the wording, I think we can do that live. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  18:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ - amend as needed. — xaosflux  Talk 18:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Questions about Checkuser and IP auditing
These questions for all nominees.
 * How willing are you to block a user or shared IP range unilaterally (CU block)? With the advent of "Wi-Fi" and shared IPs would you consider whether or not the IP address was shared before making a decision?
 * How much faith do you have in the "Duck Test" theory? With millions of registered editors, how would you to assume a match if you discover 2 different editors share topic interests?
 * What is your stance on the tool "not being pixie dust" or "for fishing"? Many editors often question the tool's accuracy — what red flags do you look for?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.116.185 (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel free to ask these on the candidates pages, I'm not sure anyone will see it here (for the candidates, this is a backwater, used to talk to the coordinators of the appointment process.) Courcelles (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Some stats: Community % support by candidate
Notes: N* = includes undecided but do not include which clearly indicate a preference but which are not specifically marked "Support" or "Oppose". All, incidentally, are well over 70%, but most don't achieve net 25. If someone has time, it might be worth adding up how many editors in total participated (which probably needs to specify whether the candidates themselves are included or excluded). Roger Davies talk 04:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Roger, does this also include any comments submitted privately? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What DoRD said; I'm going to lay odds that a very significant portion of unsupportive comments have been submitted directly to Arbcom - that was certainly the case in the past. The fact that few are achieving "net 25 support" is immaterial to anything, because nobody's suggested to the community that that would be a factor at all in this selection process.  It's kind of like comparing who would be elected to the UK Parliament under the current riding-based, first-past-the-post system with the results of a proportional-representation, slate-based system.  While not quite apples and oranges, it's pretty darn close.  Risker (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to say a few things that inevitably come up in these things. First, there were no candidates who returned the questionnaire who were not put through to the community consultation phase.  Second, there were less than five emails that were sent to us in private.  It just didn't happen this round in any "significant proportion", the vast, vast majority of comments were made in public.  And, yeah, "net 25" here is sort of meaningless. Courcelles (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brad, you beat me to it. I was going to say insignificant, but that's less than 5 anyway. Which is good, it shows that people were happy commenting publicly. The numbers are low, which I think reflects the level both of interest (low) and trust (reasonable at least) that the community has in the process. Dougweller (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I see you have taken me literally. Please also include the comments made by functionaries to the functionaries mailing list, where Arbcom had asked the functionaries to to comment.  Risker (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I answered the exact question you asked, Risker. You asked specifically about non-supportive comments.  Going back to that thread, and the private arbcom communication, i could still only find less than ten non-arbs commenting on the candidates in any manner, combining functionaries and others.  And quite a few of those vetting comments were simply statements of no objection to any candidate.  Given you asked about nonsupportive comments, not supportive ones, I believe my original statement is true. Courcelles (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And those that opposed (a small number), were more or less balanced that those that supported (mainly with responses to the reasons given for opposing). Dougweller (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Question: Does anyone have any idea why the CU votes seem to reach the net 25, while the OS votes seem harder to come by? — Ched : ?  17:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As a guess, perhaps because CU is seen as being more about trust in the individual than OS and therefore perhaps more people want to chime in on the trust issue.  Roger Davies  talk 17:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. For me personally, I only supported those who I knew something about. My "lack" of a "vote" simply means that I don't have an impression or choice one way or another (usually because I'm not all that familiar with the candidate).  Would that have the same end result as a "neutral"? (so I know for future elections). — Ched :  ?  17:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, in an election, it would be. But in this format, there's really no way for us to consider "didn't comment on that candidate" in any way.  Nor would it matter in a straight election, the way neutrals don't count in ArbCom elections. Courcelles (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

So the request was "Editors are encouraged to include a detailed rationale, supported by relevant links where appropriate." and the evaluation is a straight up vote count? NE Ent 18:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I really can't quite understand what Roger's table is actually supposed to demonstrate, other than some of th candidates had low levels of community commentary, and some had quite a bit.  Which anyone could have noticed by looking over the pages, really.  The appointments may or may not follow the amount of commentary recieved, though the quality of it is what matters.  That said, though, this very much so is a vote within the Committee. Courcelles (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

All candidates who received no oppose votes, independent of the actual (low) number of votes cast, should be appointed without hesitation. Kraxler (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * All comments about all candidates will be read and evaluated by each individual arbitrator, regardless of whether there have been any explicitly opposing them or not. All successful candidates will be appointed at the same time, regardless of their level of support. Thryduulf (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Does this go by votes or consensus, what is the criteria for passing? VegasCasinoKid (talk) 03:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a vote of Arbitration Committee members, who who take into account the community and functionary comments received. The criteria for passing is I believe a simple majority. Thryduulf (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Voting on candidates
Voting on the candidates is currently occurring at that link. Please follow there, and comment further on that page. Courcelles (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Functionary appointments (2015)

 * Original discussion

Enacted: Courcelles (talk) 02:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Following the community consultation and comments phase of the process, the Arbitration Committee will now vote on the appointment of each of the candidates.

Motion to close the motions
That the motions in Checkuser candidates and Oversight candidates below be closed either twenty-four hours after an absolute majority of the Committee have voted in support of closing them or immediately upon reaching an absolute majority if the support for this motion is unanimous.


 * Support
 * Posting this at the top as there isn't an obvious place to put it at the bottom.  Roger Davies  talk 08:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Dougweller (talk) 08:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 20:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is done., , , , , and . can y'all please see the Identification noticeboard and the instructions for getting on that page as soon as possible?  Thanks.   Courcelles (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  02:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Recuse

Bbb23 (CU)
is appointed as a Checkuser.


 * Support
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Per consensus at community discussion,  Roger Davies  talk 06:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My judgement here coincides with the community discussion also. Dougweller (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 23:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  22:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Some early hiccups at SPI, but that was a long time ago. Community in support. NativeForeigner Talk 04:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * -- DQ mobile  (ʞlɐʇ)  21:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Recuse

Callanecc (CU)
is appointed as a Checkuser, to continue after his term on the AUSC expires.


 * Support
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Per consensus at community discussion,  Roger Davies  talk 06:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My judgement here coincides with the community discussion also. Dougweller (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  15:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 23:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  22:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 04:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Recuse

HJ Mitchell (CU)
is appointed as a Checkuser.


 * Support
 * Euryalus (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Per consensus at community discussion,  Roger Davies  talk 06:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My judgement here coincides with the community discussion also. I note that over 3/4 of the community in that discussion supported him and I don't think we can ignore that without better reasons than those given. I understand that there are some concerns raised by some about his approach but I don't agree that there is a problem that prevent him from handling the tools safely. Dougweller (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Strongly. AGK  [•] 23:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't find the opposes convincing. Since the beginning, I've felt HJ should have both tools, I just held out to be sure on where I stood. While he may exhibit different qualities than the rest of us, I've found he's a quick study, and provides meaningful and blunt contributions to discussions regarding policy. -- DQ mobile  (ʞlɐʇ)  21:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * I have some concerns about HJ Mitchell's tendency to be a bit of a "cowboy" admin—I've occasionally seen some issues with his sometimes rather brusque temperament and impulsivity that make me hesitant to grant the CU flag, as it's an area of the project that I feel benefits from a more conservative approach. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * for the same reason as GW.  DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not convinced granting both flags at once is the best idea here given the community comments, and he a) shows more interest in oversight and b) admits a lack of technical expertise that is highly useful in a CU.  Courcelles (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Mostly echoing Molly. Harry is most certainly an asset to the project, and his service is appreciated. However, CheckUsers should generally skew towards caution and restraint in grey areas. L Faraone  23:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Some temperamental concerns per community. Should he be a fine OS, which I believe is likely, I'd be in support next round (although I may or may not be on committee, obviously. Being cautious here. NativeForeigner Talk 04:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Abstain


 * Recuse

Mike V (CU)
is appointed as a Checkuser.


 * Support
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Per consensus at community discussion,  Roger Davies  talk 06:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My judgement here coincides with the community discussion also. Dougweller (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 23:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  22:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 04:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Recuse
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  15:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Bbb23 (OS)
is appointed as an Oversighter.


 * Support
 * Per consensus at community discussion,  Roger Davies  talk 06:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Per his reply to my question at User talk:Bbb23, where Bbb23 makes it clear that he intends to do his fair share and that if he found he was using it rarely he would resign it. Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Per Dougweller. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We seem agreed that this candidate is trustworthy, so either he won't use the tool often enough (if so, he's stated he'll resign or we can remove it), or he will (and there is no issue). AGK  [•] 23:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Per Dougweller. Assurance is adequate for me. NativeForeigner Talk 04:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Given that we really need active oversighters, I'm not inclined to appoint someone who indicated in their statement that they don't intend to use the oversight tool often. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Given his admitted intention not to use the tool much. A person who openly admits a lack of interest in using a tool shouldn't be given it.  If he is willing to commit time and effort to doing OS on a regular basis, I would support a future application. Courcelles (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * per above -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Per Courcelles -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  15:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've reread more into Bbb23's questionnaire, and I have the feeling he doesn't fully grasp the use of oversight. I'm also concerned that CU will be a tool he needs to take time to learn, and OS is even worse from my experience, there are still situations that go over my head at three months in. I'd rather he take it one step at a time. -- DQ mobile  (ʞlɐʇ)  21:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * per Courcelles.  DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Access to the OS tool is not warranted if the rightholder has stated they do not intend to be active in the Oversight process. Mere access provides the ability to view, unlogged, redacted information, and it is poor security for us to have inactive individuals with access to deleted revisions. In the future, if 's interests / anticipated availability changes, I would not have any objection to their candidacy. L Faraone  22:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to ask him about that. Dougweller (talk) 07:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Abstain
 * Recuse

Callanecc (OS)
is appointed as an Oversighter, to continue after his term on the AUSC expires.


 * Support
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Per consensus at community discussion,  Roger Davies  talk 06:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My judgement here coincides with the community discussion also. Dougweller (talk) 07:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  15:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 23:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  22:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 04:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Recuse

GB fan (OS)
is appointed as an Oversighter.


 * Support
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Per consensus at community discussion,  Roger Davies  talk
 * My judgement here coincides with the community discussion also. Dougweller (talk) 07:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 23:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  22:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 04:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * -- DQ mobile  (ʞlɐʇ)  21:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Recuse

HJ Mitchell (OS)
is appointed as an Oversighter.


 * Support
 * Though I have concerns about HJ Mitchell's checkuser candidacy, I think he would be a fine oversighter. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I do trust Harry, and trust he will be a conscientious oversighter, knowing this role requires more finesse than the admin one. Courcelles (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Per consensus at community discussion,  Roger Davies  talk
 * My judgement here coincides with the community discussion also. I've also seen that he's been active in bringing OS concerns through to our OTRS system so he's already quite active - letting him do it himself will speed up a process that often needs to be done as quickly as possible. Dougweller (talk) 07:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 23:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * per Dougweller  DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  22:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I ask that Harry moves slowly with the tool, but there is no privacy related reason to oppose this -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  23:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 04:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * -- DQ mobile  (ʞlɐʇ)  21:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Recuse

Keilana (OS)
is appointed as an Oversighter.
 * Support
 * Will bring a different perspective to the OS team.  Courcelles (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Per consensus at community discussion,  Roger Davies  talk
 * My judgement here coincides with the community discussion also. Dougweller (talk) 07:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 23:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus2 (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  22:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain
 * NativeForeigner Talk 04:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * -- DQ mobile  (ʞlɐʇ)  21:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Recuse
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Kelapstick (OS)
is appointed as an Oversighter.


 * Support
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles (talk) 01:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Per consensus at community discussion,  Roger Davies  talk
 * My judgement here coincides with the community discussion also. Dougweller (talk) 07:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 23:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  22:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 04:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * -- DQ mobile  (ʞlɐʇ)  22:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Recuse

Lankiveil (OS)
is appointed as an Oversighter.


 * Support
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Per consensus at community discussion,  Roger Davies  talk
 * My judgement here coincides with the community discussion also. Dougweller (talk) 07:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 23:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  22:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 04:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Recuse

Mike V (OS)
is appointed as an Oversighter.


 * Support
 * I've personally received a lot of oversight requests from Mike V, and to my memory they have all required suppression. I think Mike V would be an active and valuable member of the oversight team. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Per consensus at community discussion,  Roger Davies  talk
 * My judgement here coincides with the community discussion also. Dougweller (talk) 07:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 23:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe has the proper judgement to make a good Oversight team member, and have entertained a number of requests from  that I found to be entirely within policy. L Faraone  23:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 04:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain
 * May change later, but here for now. L Faraone  22:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Recuse
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  15:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Ronhjones (OS)
is appointed as an Oversighter.


 * Support
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Per consensus at community discussion,  Roger Davies  talk
 * My judgement here coincides with the community discussion also. Dougweller (talk) 07:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 23:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  22:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 04:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Recuse

Community comments on oversight voting

 * You accidentally voted on Callanecc's OS motion twice. :) Mike V • Talk 21:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * fixed NE Ent 21:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There's probably some kind of appropriate political aphorism for when this occurs. Suffice it to say it's a sign of my esteem for Callanecc that I gave him 200% support. Or alternatively a clerical error on my part. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Just curious. It's likely we will get 8 new oversighters out of this vote (9 including Callanecc, who already carries an average oversighter's workload). Not counting arbitrators and AUSC members, for whom performance of suppression is strictly optional, that gives us 25 existing oversighters + 8 new ones = 33 oversighters. Average number of suppressions per month is 380. I cannot see the justification for increasing the staffing by over 30%. The oversighters haven't ever fallen that far behind since 2011. Note that I don't think anyone who is a current candidate would do the job badly; but I really can't figure out why it is a good thing to expand the access to non-public information so significantly.  Risker (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the activity requirements can be re-evaluated if need be, but experience tells us the usual problem is understaffing. I tend to think that appointing nine new members would take us back to a proper staffing level, but I very much doubt it will push us into the realm of over-staffing. AGK  [•] 20:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

General community comments
If I recall correctly from my time as an Arbitrator, the cutoff was 80% support among the Arbitrators to appoint someone as a functionary. Is that threshold being kept here, or is it the standard motion cutoff (51%)? NW ( Talk ) 19:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * According to, it is a "simple majority".--Bbb23 (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have strongly disagreed with it. I do not want to see functionaries pass on 8-7 or 7-6 votes; IMO, no one who can't command at least the confidence of 2/3rds of the Committee should not be appointed to these sensitive roles. Courcelles (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll pitch in here and say exactly the same thing; watering down the level of arbitrator support to far below what would be acceptable in a community election isn't a great way to garner community respect for the new appointees. In fact, I'm rather concerned that the rules seem to have changed in the middle of the selection process, both in the on-wiki voting and in the level of support that candidates must achieve. If those had been the rules at the outset of the selection process, there might well have been a different group of candidates. Risker (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My view is that we have a policy on votes that we must follow. It's at Arbitration/Policy and states that "Decisions are reached by a majority vote of active, non-recused arbitrators." And all through this, until a day or two ago, I don't recall anyone ever raising any suggestion that there were any other 'rules' that should be applied (nor could they be without a policy change). I've been assuming all along that it was only a majority that was required, and from my perspective a change to anything else is what would amount to a change in the rules in the middle of a process. Remember a number of us are new and are simply assuming policy applies. It does appear that past appointments didn't follow arbitration policy, but that's irrelevant here. If this is to be changed, then it will need an amendment to policy. Now's not the time for that obviously. Dougweller (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Risker, I can definitely see your point about the 50+1 vs 70 or 80. There has been no actual decision from the committee saying it's one way or the other, people are just assuming based on policy. Well if there was ever a time to apply IAR, it's now. Precedent has run with the higher numbers in the past, and we should continue that. if you voted for the change in "rules" for the onwiki voting, like I did, I really don't understand your comment that we shouldn't be changing the rules in the middle of the process.
 * That said though, for Risker's second point re. on-wiki voting, while we did change things in the middle of the process, I think it should be a welcomed change. The Arbitration Committee is providing more transparency, something it doesn't do very often. It would have been the best to leave this for a process change after, but the next vote it would affect would likely be next year at the earliest, so it made sense to implement the change now, and it doesn't really affect anything in the actual process, just a location for the discussion. So that I will have to disagree, as it's not a bad change. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  15:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It was more an announcement of a 'rule' towards the end of a process, and something, IMHO, much more crucial than voting transparently on-wiki. We would need to think carefully about higher numbers, do we want to set a higher bar for non-Arbs getting these tools than Arbs? Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No. If the committee says before it starts a process: we're going to do X, it should do X. That's transparency. Or, as the adage goes: say what you mean, do what you say. NE Ent 15:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's another form of transparency. Like I said above, it would have been nice to do it before process, but since the discussion started in the middle, it wasn't possible to do it before. Could we have left it? Yes. Are you guys asking for us to not have been transparent at all, or is the change welcome, and it's just a timing issue? -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  15:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not fair to the candidates to change the process mid-stream; they applied with the belief that arbitrators would hold their discussions about them privately, and now instead they are being discussed and voted on publicly by the arbitrators, something they didn't expect when putting forth their candidacy. –xenotalk 16:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The timing. To be blunt, if the committee feels it's appropriate to tell the community it's going to do something a certain way, and not follow through, it reflects poorly on its integrity. NE Ent 16:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with that it's unfair to change the process midstream. If you want to represent yourselves as a more transparent Arbcom then that's great, but it's completely disrespectful, not to mention ironic, to the candidates and the community to change the review process without a word to anyone outside of your private discussions. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  04:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I can definitely see that point of view, and I thank the three of you for your responses. Reading how Xeno put it reads it into perspective to me. Personally, I'd like to apologize to any candidate who we may have offended through doing so. I know it's a little late to do anything and the damage is already done, so I am only able to offer words of apology. And Ponyo, on your last point, I would agree with you that this would have been better to have been discussed outside of the committee too. There may still be a chance for that (not with this appointment obviously), I still have to read through my Arb emails and figure out where things are on this subject. -- DQ mobile  (ʞlɐʇ)  18:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * While you're at it, you might consider apologizing to those who did not put forward a candidacy because they were of the understanding that the longstanding process of requiring 75-80% of arbitrators to approve an appointment was still in effect. There is a rather major difference between having to gain the trust of 12 people and having to be supported by only 8 - especially since at least a few of you are indicating that you are voting essentially on the community's comments. You didn't get at least one person I know of who would have been a good candidate, and there coule well have been more.  Meanwhile, you're now about to overstaff the Oversight team to the point that some oversighters may have difficulty meeting even the minuscule activity requirements.  Risker (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am having trouble finding where the committee ever confirmed what the threshold for appointment actually is. It is not confirmed in the widely-recycled appointments page template, and the closest the documentation gets to confirming the threshold is the phrase "clear consensus". You and I are aware of the threshold, but how would anybody else be? AGK  [•] 20:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

There were candidates who believed there was a threshold that members of the Committee didn't know about? That doesn't sound like a very good situation. Dougweller (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , I'm a bit surprised you didn't know it, but not overly shocked; after all, the committee has been in existence for 11 years now, and I doubt anyone knows the full history of everything the committee has ever done. I only had to read 5 years of decisions (and mailing list archives, which we could actually read back then) when I came on board; it would take a new arb months to do that now. At the end of the day, the intention of having that higher level of required support was intended to parallel the documented process for community elections as closely as possible, and certainly during any openly public participation in elections (i.e., 2009 and 2010) that was eminently clear. Once things had to be pulled back because of the failure of SecurePoll to provide a satisfactory result (i.e., sufficient number of appointable candidates), the committee just pretty much kept doing internally what had been done publicly to that point., during the time I was on Arbcom, if anyone ever asked me, in the interests of transparency I always answered basically as I just did above to Dougweller: that the committee embraced the same required level of support from active arbitrators. I'm sure it's posted somewhere or other, either by me or someone else; after all, it was the principle used in 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. There wasn't a selection process in 2014 at all, so I would have had no reason to have said anything then. I got rid of a lot of my Arbcom emails, but I seem to recall that it was mentioned in correspondence with one or more candidates at some point, either directly or indirectly.  Certainly it was the understanding of many people, including I think just about every current functionary, that the 70-80% level of arbcom support was required, and anyone would have been acting entirely reasonably to say so if asked, as far as I am concerned.  Risker (talk) 00:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The support level required for AUSC appointments is publicly documented, and is 80%. In the past, after the votes have been taken on individual candidates, a motion is written granting permissions to candidates that have met the required support level, and that motion is voted on separately (and presumably only requires a simple majority to pass). T. Canens (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, though that was superseded by the procedure on internal resolutions one month later and by the community ratified Arbitration policy provisions two months later in June 2011.  Roger Davies  talk 01:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, Roger, you never pointed that out for the first four years that it was in place, there being no appointments last year. In fact, I don't recall there ever even being a discussion about reducing it to the "standard" 50%+1. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I'm saying it's a bad idea to change it without bothering to tell anyone, in the middle of an appointment process. Risker (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Am I wrong in saying that there is no public place that says that candidates for CU or OS need to obtain more than an absolute majority? And that candidates shouldn't be expected to have to ask a past Arbitrator about that? Should new Arbs really be expected to search email rather than rely on publicly stated policy and procedure? The level for AUSC candidates seems irrelevant as the candidates being voted on now aren't running for AUSC. Dougweller (talk) 06:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In any case, as you say, there's no basis in policy for perpetuating, now that we all know about it, a procedural flaw in the 2012 and 2013 rounds.  Roger Davies  talk 07:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make much sense, Roger, for the committee to backtrack from a procedure that had just been published a few months ago, without even mentioning that it was doing so. Moreover, the votes on the candidates themselves are not "internal resolutions". You and I both know that they were not held on the discussion board, as that procedure requires. The vote that was held on the discussion board is the final appointment motion, and that's the "internal resolution" subject to the procedure you refer to. In any event, where you see a "procedural flaw" I see an implicit understanding by the committee at the time - who oversaw the adoption of the procedures you mention - that they do not apply to CU/OS and AUSC candidate votes. T. Canens (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

What's the difference between Abstain and Recuse? NE Ent 20:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Abstain: To not vote for or against a specific individual by choice Recuse: due to a personal relationship or other conflict of interest, not voting for or against an individual. NativeForeigner Talk 20:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Same as in general Arbitration Committee votes: abstention indicates that one does not wish to register a vote; recuse is a bit stronger in that there is some sort of conflict of interest with the candidate. Recused parties are expected not to comment on the candidates at all, publicly or privately, to avoid influencing the votes. In terms of the final result, there's no real difference, as neither affects the tally other than by changing the number of votes required for a majority. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * In others words, GorillaWarfare and Keilana are BFF's or nemeses, and no one's talking. NE Ent 21:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're gettting to sound more and more like Kumioko every day. Be careful, down that path lies madnsss. Why not edit some articles to relax and get yourself properly focused on the real purpose of Wikipedia?  You haven't done much of that in quite a while. BMK (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * One, insulting a blocked user isn't any less of a violation of WP:NPA and you know better. Two, the comment on GorillaWarfare's editing habits is perhaps out of line. People can be absolutely focused on the real purpose of Wikipedia without in mainspace. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @Hammersoft: You shame yourself with the lack of knowledge inherent in your comment. BMK (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Insulting someone is wrong. I'm well aware of the Kumioko story. It does not provide an excuse to insult him. WP:NPA does not have a special clause allowing people to insult those who are blocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Does it matter? It only seems like it would be an issue if we were best friends or nemeses and I didn't recuse. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We're best friends on Snapchat, at least... :P Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 00:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Lots of editors are friends with each other. And, personally, I don't think anyone needs to be talking about it. Liz  Read! Talk! 01:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Process question
[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight/2015_CUOS_appointments&oldid=653790591 2015 appointment process] says: said: "The committee shall review all the comments submitted and other relevant factors before finalizing an internal resolution, at which point the appointments will be published." Doesn't "internal" mean "not onwiki"? NE Ent 10:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC) Edited for clarity. NE Ent 12:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC) Corrected. NE Ent 15:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That is how it was done in the past (in camera); it looks like it's been changed - which is probably a good thing; transparency and all - but the onwiki voting and commenting might not have been expected by the candidates. –xeno<sup style="color:#000">talk 12:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The announced process hasn't changed -- the link is to the current (2015) page. NE Ent 12:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * But the actual process has... –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 14:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * the minor housekeeping change. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  15:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Re [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration_Committee%2FCheckUser_and_Oversight%2F2015_CUOS_appointments&diff=653899401&oldid=653790591]

Before
The committee shall review all the comments submitted and other relevant factors before finalizing an internal resolution, at which point the appointments will be published. The successful candidates will be required to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation prior to receiving the permissions.

After
The committee shall review all the comments submitted and other relevant factors before voting on a motion. When the motion is done, the appointments will be formally published on the Arbitration Committee Noticeboard. The successful candidates will be required to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation prior to receiving the permissions.

Is it the opinion of the entire committee that that is a "minor houskeeping change"? NE Ent 15:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My goodness no. The process was changed, and the edit was a formality of that change. That's why the edit itself, not the change, I said was a minor housekeeping change. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  16:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I see that an internal resolution also only calls for an absolute majority, so we have that in two places, our procedures and our policy. Dougweller (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "When the motion done" >> "When the motion is done"? (although I prefer "After voting on the motion has completed"... because the "motion" itself does not actually perform any actions.) — Ched : ?  17:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Fix was made on the original already -- updated the copy above. NE Ent 17:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why is more transparency seen as a problem? Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

What next, a motion to close the motion to close the motions?
I find the motion at the top of this page hysterical. It's amazing you guys didn't figure out a structure for this already. It's not like it's the first time you've appointed CU/OS. Wow. Humor stranger than scripted comedy. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Hammersoft, you're so very clever, let's all laugh and point at the people lame enough to volunteer for this without your knowledge of parliamentary procedure - which is, after all, the most important thing. It certainly makes us feel better about ourselves, doesn't it? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I simply find it bizarre. In the 'real' world, people wouldn't hold a vote and then decide how the vote was to be administered. The process for doing this (see process) has been around in more or less this form for at least three years . I understand processes evolve, and very little is adequate on its first iteration. This isn't the first iteration. To not have something like a honed process after at least three years of use strikes me as absurd. I was not suggesting anyone laugh at anyone, much less volunteers, which we all are ultimately. Wikipedia, by definition, is imperfect. Nevertheless, a system that grants such powers should be better administered. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry that this innovation (no point pointing to a page on process which doesn't cover this) hasn't gone as smoothly as you'd like. I don't think where the close motion goes has anything to do with the way in which we exercise our powers. Dougweller (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)