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

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 CU and OS for the criteria under which stewards assign the rights. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If memory serves, the "must have passed an RfA or RfA-like process" requirement for  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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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). --Rschen7754 18:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * It still sounds like too many Oversighters are gettig blocked. How can we reduce that number? Muffled Pocketed  11:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Right! Muffled Pocketed  12:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That page is descriptive, not prescriptive . 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)
 * They weren't random staffers, they were General Counsels of the WMF, and their opinion is one of the most valued within the Foundation. MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Good for them... still doesn't justify why their opinion should overrule board and community policies. Or even what authority legal would have over such community issues except through board resolution. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC) Edit: Apologies for the note a full year after this comment was made, but I was just reading back over this and realizing how bone-headed my comments were. Obviously the legal team can and should inform our practices, particularly surrounding the use of CU/OS rights and viewing deleted content. My concern was with a requirement being enforced when it didn't necessarily exist, as we found out when the WMF was directly asked. Problem solved now. :-) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 03:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You ought to be kidding me... MarcoAurelio (talk) 07:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Erm. I don't see where the Board has made a statement one way or the other on this issue. Remember that the vast majority of projects have neither checkusers nor oversighters; of those that do, they often have very specific criteria for nomination, and almost all of them include "must be an admin". I think it was a mistake for Arbcom back in 2009 (yes, back when I was on it) to say they'd consider non-admins, because there really is no sign of community support for promoting a non-admin to either CU or OS. It's unfair to set people up to fail, which has inevitably happened with non-admins who've applied, regardless of the process by which they were selected. Risker (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC) Yes, I know one non-admin AUSC member was selected. He didn't participate on AUSC and - unrelated to Wikipedia - died shortly after appointment.
 * Anticipating this question, we contacted the WMF yesterday to clarify their position on this :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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:  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   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:  as there are times which a request doesn't need suppression but does need to be deleted but shouldn't be advertised publicly.   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.   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)
 * 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. I will note that there really is no need for additional oversighters - the oversighters we have now are more likely to express concern that the response is so quick most times that even if the OS is logged into OTRS and sees the ticket come in, it's already processed by the time they open it; we are underutilizing those who already have the permission. As to CU, there are no identified or reported backlogs in any CU-specific areas, although I think a case could be made to add people who have experience and knowledge using IPv6. Risker (talk) 03:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Passing comment; agree that Arbcom scrutiny of CU/OS candidates is far less rigorous than that applied by the community in either RfA or RfArb, and that this is inappropriate given the sensitivity of CU/OS tools. Perhaps too late in this round to do anything about that, but something for next time.
 * Also agree there's no need for more oversighters - there's too little work to justify the number we presently have, and the monthly stats show a number of existing oversighters are failing the minimum activity requirements. Politely suggest the Committee either accept only 1-2 oversight candidates at most, or enforce the activity requirements and clear out the existing ranks before creating any more. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I could not do my job as a CheckUser if I wasn't also an administrator. I would not favor a non-administrator being given the tools by Arbcom to be able to the job of a CheckUser. I think the rule ought to be more bright-line: you have to be an administrator to become a CheckUser. That is the way it is expressed now on the project page.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I doubt that we will appoint more than 2 oversighters. We are "clearing out the existing ranks" at the moment. As for CU, I disagree that we don't need any more. That there is no or little backlog is purely due to the heroic efforts of people like User:Bbb23. We need more simply to spread the workload a bit more evenly and to provide backup if we lose someone like Bbb23 for any period of time longer than a few days. And of course we need more with knowledge of IPv6, that alone is sufficient reason for appointing new CUs. And speaking personally, I think that anyone given either of these tools should have gone through an RfA scrutiny. And I think they actually need the Admin tools.  Doug Weller  talk 12:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above that I have a hard time seeing how it would be practical to have a non-admin CU or OS. I suspect other projects that have made it work either have different norms or different needs for the use of those tools. That said, if my opinion of the current state of RfA were any lower you'd need a shovel to dig it out of the ground. So for my part, I'd be willing to appoint non-admins to those roles in a future recruiting round if the community had an RfC authorizing that a) these editors would receive the admin tools along with their functionary tools; b) there would be no restrictions on how they could use their admin tools; and c) they would not be expected or required to turn in the admin tools should they stop working as functionaries.
 * As for numbers, this will definitely be a rather smaller group compared to last year, and there's particular interest in technically skilled checkusers. I expect everyone here has seen this already but just in case, Amanda made a few updates to the call to provide more specific details. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement that we desperately need more CU. The queue (today), particularly open cases, is at its lowest level that I've seen in a long time and we're still talking about dozens of cases. If and  were to reduce their workload or need to take a break, the queue would not be kept up with. I would caution falling into the preconceived notion that we should already be thinking about accepting small groups. I would like to see any suitable candidate, especially with CU, be granted the tools to assist, even if the number of qualified individuals exceeds that of a previous year. Just my thoughts on the matter.  Mkdw talk 15:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the majority of the SPI queue - even when it is dozens deep - doesn't need CU attention. Additional clerks or patrolling admins, on the other hand, could definitely help to keep it under control. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

time when a candidate must be of age
Since the official announcement of successful candidates is not before October 8th, I see no reason that someone who will become "at least 18 years of age and have legal majority in their jurisdiction of residence" before that date should be allowed to be a candidate. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Should not be allowed or should be allowed? My sense is that candidates must be legal adults at the point where they are given access to the buttons, that is at the latest 8th October if we assume no delay between the announcement, identification and the actual switch flip. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear Mommy, it's very exciting here at college. The buildings are so old. But I have even more sensational news. I've become a CheckUser on Wikipedia. You know that online thingie where I became an administator at 12? Unfortunately, I'll probably have to drop out of college. I just won't have time for both. Please don't tell Daddy as he'll probably complain to the head honchos at Wikipedia that they are corrupting his child. Wish me luck! Love, Leslie.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear Mommy, I know I'm writing this message from your basement, but I have great news; I've become a CheckUser on Wikipedia. You know that online thingie where there's some articles and stuff but mostly I spend my time at this place called the Administrator's Noticeboard. I know I said I'd move out before I turned 35 but I think it's just going to have to be next year... ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is worth anyone's time to worry about unless there are interested and qualified candidates who are right on the border (in which case they should email us). Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Reminder: questionnaires due 23:59, 20 September 2016
Reminder to all that the deadline for returning your questionnaire to be considered in this round of functionary appointments is 23:59, 20 September 2016. If you are interested in applying but have not yet requested a questionnaire, please do so ASAP by emailing. Thanks! Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Last call, deadline is today! (And if you think you've requested or returned a questionnaire but haven't heard from us, please send us an email ASAP!) Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on 2016 CUOS candidates!
The Arbitration Committee invites comments from the community on this year's candidates for the CheckUser and Oversight permissions. The community consultation phase of the 2016 appointment round will run from 26 September to 8 October. Questions for the candidates may be asked at Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2016 CUOS appointments. Comments may be posted there or emailed privately to the arbitration committee at. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking a watchlist notice would be good for this - any specific wording you'd like ? — xaosflux  Talk 02:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason to stray from what you put last year . Other than changing the date/time to 23:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC). Thanks, --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 03:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Much obliged. --kelapstick(bainuu) 03:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Should this be advertised on the Template:Centralized discussion?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  08:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine - we normally advertise RfA's there. — xaosflux  Talk 14:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Good idea, added. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Removal of comments/question
There's a couple of questions from (now) blocked IP addresses, which appear to be LTA/Community Banned. Should/Could someone remove these? Pinging as the most recent 'crat to comment here --  samtar talk or stalk 14:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement that these edits should be removed under our policy for WP:BE. As a fellow candidate, I'm involved in the process in such a way that optically I should not be the one to do it. Mkdw talk 14:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)