Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight

wording of step six in "election" proceedure

Step 6 currently reads:

Any unbanned editor who has made at least 150 mainspace edits by the first day of the calendar month before the election may vote.

Is "banned" being used in the context of Wikipedia:Banning policy, or is it referring to any blocked user? (nitpicking, I know, but the way it is currently written, I think that someone who is blocked but not formally banned could request to have a vote cast on his or her behalf) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say a blocked user could request to vote as long as they are not formally banned. I say that because it's happened in arb elections IIRC. Speaking for myself here, not for the whole committee necessarily. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This not how policy is made

See here. >Radiant< 17:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a delegation of extant Arbitration powers, which is part of why its in the spot that it is. There was also an RFC which had strong approval. Its essentially arbitration policy, and thus within the remit of the committee--Tznkai (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Word count

I've removed the word count requirement for two reasons:

1. It's overly-bureaucratic and serves no one
2. It's being ignored, and policy pages should be descriptive, not proscriptive

If you disagree with the edit, please discuss here before reverting. Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

66%?

That's extremely low, considering bureaucrats need 90%. Majorly talk 04:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not the best comparison, I think; arbitrators only need 50%, for example. Kirill ^[pf] 04:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales only picks the top through, as not everyone who has over 50% can become an Arbitrator. Techman224^Talk 19:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Arse about face

I'm still of the opinion this policy is the wrong way round - preselection of 'preferred' candidates by Arbcom does little to assauge concerns of cronyism. Surely the community can be trusted to put forward and elect its own candidates, and then only in exceptional circumstances, Arbcom may veto the the result. This has worked fine for Arbcom elections after all - why should this process be any different? --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Step six in 'Election' section again

"Any editor who has made at least 150 mainspace edits by 31 January 2009 may vote."

I assume this only applies to the current election. Shouldn't the wording be changed to clarify for future elections - for example, "Any editor who has made at least 150 mainspace edits by the day elections are announced."? Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, we'll have a chance to change it before the next election comes around. ;-) Kirill ^[pf] 02:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No time like the present, right? Bsimmons666 (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Invalid

This policy is invalid. The ArbCom does not "hand down" policy. Policy grows from the ground up from the community. Andre (talk) 05:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

RFC specifically for Arbs and current CU/OS: why aren't existing CU/OS put through this?

(This is effectively a mini-RFC for sitting Arbs and current sitting CU/OS users to answer)

This mini RFC is specifically for the sitting Arbs, but I would also like to see answers from any current CU/OS operators if they're willing to be bold and be counted. I'd like to see an answer from as many of you as possible, for the benefit of the community. As this will be the process and requirement for all new CU/OS operators, beside Arbs--who are community vetted via their own election for the duration of their term--can you tell us specifically the answers to these five questions? Any non-sitting Arb CU/OS can just add their own named section below.

1. Do you support having all current CU/OS operators who are not sitting AC members undergoing this election/trust vetting process, to see if the community today trusts them with the tools? This would be any CU/OS operator--including former ArbCom members--who received the rights at any point prior to this first election in February 2009.
2. So that there is no loophole for the current AC09 members, would you be willing to stand for this confirmation after your Arbcom tenure ends, and having this be a requirement for continued access to the tools for any future ex-Arbcom member?
3. Why or why not, in regards to your answer to questions #1 and #2?
4. Specific question I and I'm sure others would like answered in regards to questions #1 and #2, if your answer is not "Yes", and your #3 answer didn't cover it: Why are the old CU/OS different than all the new ones, to be exempted from a frank public examination of whether the community trusts them to do their jobs as CU/OS "today"?
5. When, if your answer to question #1 is "Yes"?

Thank you, and the community thanks you for your frank and forthright answers, to dispel any shadow of inappropriate politics in this process permanently, including retroactively in regards to the old users, so ALL CU/OS operators are held to matching and identical standards. rootology (C)(T) 18:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Carcharoth

• Placeholder - I intend to answer these questions at some point. Please feel free to remind me on my talk page if I forget. For the record, I recently asked for the CU and OS bits to be flipped on on my account, but I only intend to use them for review purposes (i.e. to review evidence in arbitration cases and in cases where the use of OS and CU is questioned). I also intend to ask for the CU and OS bits to be removed at the end of my term. Carcharoth (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool Hand Luke

1. Yes. I imagine in the future we would want to require re-confirmation after terms. Not so urgent though.
2. Yes, I will stand for such a confirmation election (assuming I'm still here).
3. To #1, I would like such positions to have term limits so that the tools are held by people with fairly recent mandates of confidence from the community. To #2, it's mostly a personal decision. I was very specific about having a 3 year term limit as arbitrator. If the community would like me to serve in some other capacity beyond that date, they should give me a new mandate to do so.
4. N/A.
5. We would need to decide term limits for starters... No rush; perhaps within the next year. (I generally agree with Sam's answers on all of these questions).

Cool Hand Luke 01:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Coren

1. No, at least not in this format. The review board proposal should take care of problems that may currently exist, but I would otherwise be inclined to consider the previous holders as "granfathered in".
2. Not for 2009, but probably for 2010. The currently sitting arbitrators were elected taking into account that they could elect to get those rights and retain them; that may not be so after next elections (and might, indeed, make the election process go a little easier on the candidates).
3. Because I'm no fan of changing the rules after the fact. Because the previous holders were expected to retain those right indefinitely, much more care has gone into their selection or election that would otherwise have. Retroactive changes in rules are always inherently unfair and should never be done unless there is a pressing need to do so.
4. They are not, but they were picked under different presumptions. What's needed is not reconfirmation so much as a means by which any errors or misuse can be handled, regardless of how the bits were gotten in the first place.
5. I would support reconfirmation of existing right holders on the recommendation of the review board once it has been set up.

Dominic

As a current CheckUser and Oversighter, and former arbitrator, I broadly agree with your premise and think there should absolutely be periodic "trust vetting" of all people with privileged access, including former arbitrators with mailing list access as well as CU and OS.

What we at least need is for the internal assessment that went on before the candidates were put forth for the election to happen for all CU, OS, and former arbitrators on the mailing list. What initially happened was that all of the potential candidates were listed on the private arbwiki, and arbitrators left opinions; only candidates that were unanimous (or maybe had one or so weak objections at most) moved on to the election. Current holders of privileged access should be able to pass a similar standard of scrutiny from ArbCom, though not necessarily a private vote unless certain rationales include reference to sensitive material, and I think this would be an important undertaking, since there has really never been any review process for such editors. For one thing, several of the current holders would likely deservedly fail a vetting on the basis of their inactivity alone, and should not retain their access while they do not need it, for the sake of security and privacy. Public input, or evidence if there is a specific evidence, would be accepted, but without a community (re)vote. The same vetting could be undertaken by a "review board," but I am skeptical that it could be set up in a timely manner and without simply creating another layer of bureaucracy that requires its own vetting/elections/review.

However, I do not think an election is workable. In general, as with administrators, once the community has indicated its support, I think we should only put them through it again if they have to reapply after having it removed under controversial circumstances. Elections are a lot of time, effort, and potential stress for candidates and community members alike; and with dozens of people with privileged access not only will we be multiplying that problem, we will probably start to see diminishing interest from the community. I am already concerned with the relative amount of participants in the election as compared to the ArbCom elections, and we don't want it to turn into something like RfA, where only a small, predictable segment of the community participates. Dominic·t 12:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

FayssalF

1. Yes.
2. I don't think I'd be interested in keeping the tools after my ArbCom term comes to its end. A requirement for ex and future arbitrators? Why not?
3. This is an open project. We cannot call it 'open' if only a few people retain some very sensitive tools for life. And in order to maintain it open we can only rely on elections and reconfirmations.
4. N/A.
5. Probably after the constitution of wp:Review Board?

Jayvdb

(quickly answering..)

1. No; or at least, not yet, and not in this format. The proposed WP:Review Board is one mechanism which I would prefer operate for a while before current OS/CU are subjected to community reconfirmation, which if done right now would be a popularity contest due to a lack of increased awareness of their invisible contributions to the project.
2. I will be happy to stand for an election like this to retain OS/CU after my term is over, or any other format decided upon by the committee at the time.
3. I believe that the committee should be free to try new measures as they see fit.
4. Standards evolve. Old OS/CU should be given an opportunity to adapt. Many of them are keen to see improved standards; some feel the higher standards mean they are unable to continue in the role because the additional transparency/accountability means the role is more demanding than they signed up for (e.g. time wise, or more philosophical reasons) but many are happy to adapt if more volunteers are on deck. I would not like to assume that the old members are unable or unwilling to rise to the challenge. If they dont wish to adapt, they will be looking down the barrel of either the review board or, failing that, a committee investigation (probably private out of respect to the changes afoot)
5. I would be happy to enforce old OS/CU undergoing the process in the same timeframe as I will likely undergo it, which is in two years from now.

Kirill Lokshin

I support the idea of reconfirmation in principle; as a practical matter, however, I don't believe that a straight reconfirmation vote would be tenable in the foreseeable future.

Past results (e.g. the past Arbitration Committee elections) suggest that a significant, if not overwhelming, proportion of incumbents—and, particularly, incumbents who are politically prominent within the community, whether because they have served on the Committee or for other reasons—will fail to be re-elected if any meaningful support requirement it set. A straight reconfirmation vote (with the number of candidates equal to the number of "open" seats) can only result in our having fewer CU/OS operators, never more; and we are faced with a very real possibility that we would lose enough to cripple normal operations.

A more palatable alternative would be to combine reconfirmations with normal elections, such that new candidates could potentially replace those who were not reconfirmed; but even here, care must be taken to avoid losing too many at once.

(It's worth noting, incidentally, that the current elections are not for fixed terms; once the users are given CU/OS tools, there is nothing in current policy that would mandate reconfirmation at any point in the future. The question may well be asked, in a year's time, whether they should stand for a confirmation vote; would this be any different from the current situation?)

As for myself, I've needed access to the tools primarily for my arbitration work, and I intend to relinquish them when I am no longer on the Committee. Kirill ^[pf] 05:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Risker

1. I think more value would come from the proposed review board/audit panel.
2. I have no problem with the concept of community reconfirmation, should I choose to actively continue using the permissions at that time.
3. I believe that, on granting access to Checkuser and Oversight permissions, community trust is one of several factors to take into consideration; others include interest, demonstrated ability to refuse inappropriate requests, understanding of policy, etc. When considering if permissions should continue to be extended, one has to consider whether they are being used, whether they are being used in a manner consistent with current policy, and the community's longstanding tradition of granting permissions and not revoking them unless there is uncorrected, actual abuse. At this point, there are no meaningful metrics to determine if these considerations are being met.
4. I think #3 covers most of it.
5. To some extent, I think we need to get the review board/audit panel fully functional before we determine timing of reconfirmation. Without useful assessment of how someone is using the tools, any reconfirmation process would be a popularity contest. Risker (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sam Blacketer

I think the first thing to say is that the current election process now coming to an end was by way of an experiment. From my perspective it is agreed that those users with access to features such as Checkuser and Oversight should be approved by the community. One of the things that the arbitrators will have to decide after the end of it will be whether this process worked well as it was tried, or whether it could be improved.

1. Yes, eventually; but it is not urgent.
2. I have neither Oversight nor Checkuser and do not intend to take them in future.
3. Because I am conscious that monitoring the operation of Oversight and Checkuser are very difficult for ordinary users to do. By helping to reassure users that those with these powers are only those in whom the community has the highest confidence, it helps to stop frivolous complaints which distract from the writing of an encyclopaedia.
4. First, high-profile administrators can often become unpopular for reasons unconnected to their trustworthiness when using Oversight or Checkuser. Second, an election process would take up a great deal of time for the candidates. Some perfectly able operators would withdraw. Third, there already is a system of checking for abuse of Oversight and Checkuser; we know much about the trustworthiness of the current operators by the complaints we receive (or the lack of them).
5. I think it should be a rolling process over the next two years, taking several candidates at a time. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Bain

I don't think that this process is necessarily suitable for reconfirmation. There was an internal discussion in December (and again a bit in January) about possibly introducing term limits; it didn't produce anything concrete, however I liked the idea and I think that could be something adopted in the future. There would then be something similar to the elections for the Committee itself. Downsides would include:

• that the performance of CheckUsers and Oversighters is almost entirely insusceptible to community review, unlike the bulk of arbitration work;
• that the timing of new appointments to these roles is better arranged on a supply-and-demand basis rather than there being regular scheduled elections, which there would need to be if there were term limits.

Frankly, I myself was comfortable with the system trialled late last year (although, I'm right here in the cabal for the time being, so of course I'm comfortable with that) and I think it would be good for those advocating a transition to an elected system to think about these problems and how to address them. Can we learn from other projects in this regard?

As for my own access, I have it only for arbitration work, and I don't intend to keep it beyond leaving the Committee. --bainer (talk) 10:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Redundant wording?

• Election #3: "Candidates may post a short statement, and editors may pose questions of the candidates during this period."
• Election #4/5: "Candidates are encouraged to post a concise statement during the preliminary phase, outlining their credentials. Editors are encouraged to put brief questions to the candidates and to make brief comments."

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Category discussion

This page might get a new policy category; the discussion is at WP:VPP#Wikipedia administrative policy. - Dank (push to talk) 23:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

vot=UNacesibl!!

+closdmouthOUNDSde disabld!!![fair o/wmf????---Please note, I have [[Repetitive Strain Injury]] and find typing very hard. I use a form of shorthand, which may be difficult to understand. I can be contacted through MSN (sven70) or Skype (sven0921) if my meaning is unclear. (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible documentation/instruction tweak?

Recently, while commenting on a CU candidate, Kumioko made what I think is a very insightful comment.[1] I would like you to consider adding it in some form into the documentation/instructions for CU appointments. The comment was:

"I just want to clarify that, the permission being requested here isn't akin to the admin tools. There is nothing that can be done with the admin tools that cannot be reverted. With this tool though, it exposes the users personal information in such a way that cannot be undone if abused. Its out there, forever. So as we have seen with a couple of high profile cases in the last year, the results can be devastating and reverberate through the project... This tool must be given to only the most trusted users who have demonstrated an ability to keep a cool head and a meticulous patience."

I would also note that there are currently no instructions at the top of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2013 CUOS appointments/CU. One would think that anyone who follows a link would instead end up at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2013 CUOS appointments (which does have instructions and transcludes the CU subpage), but our new notifications feature sent me directly to the CU subpage when I was mentioned there. Editors who are mentioned by name on that page are especially likely to have had previous encounters with the candidate in question, and thus are, IMO, in special need of clear instructions. Could we have some commentator's instructions at the top of that page and future pages like it? In addition to a paraphrase of Kumioko's comment above, it would be desirable to instruct commenters that the comments should be relevant to the CU right and that this is not RFC/U. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

General Questions for editors with CU access

Because CU can track the IP addresses of an editor and vice-versa, the following questions arise each time this tool is utilized:

• How willing are you to block a user 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?

I ask these questions because this is not only used to track vandalism but people who abuse the account creation process or the create excessive accounts, leading to accounts being block solely because "userA & userB logged in from the same IP or IP range". In light of the recent nominations, I think this is a valid discussion. Anon (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request: Status of WP:CUOS (October 2015)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by L235 at 05:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• L235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by L235

The banner at the top of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight currently states: This page is a procedural policy, and documents an extension of the arbitration policy developed by the Arbitration Committee in consultation with the Wikipedia community. Any significant edit to this page should have approval from the Arbitration Committee.[...]" However, the page is most definitely not a "policy" in the sense that it is created by the community, and not a part of the arbitration policy as it was not ratified by the community per WP:A/P#Ratification_and_amendment. It appears to be closest to a procedure (being amendable by the Committee, and being a subpage of "Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee" rather than "Wikipedia:Arbitration"), but it may not even be that because I don't see that any of it has been formally adopted by motion or resolution of the Committee. Could the Committee clarify the status here?

@Thryduulf: What I'm really asking here can be summed into:

• Can the Committee change it, notwithstanding the community's wishes? If so, then it is not a policy per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Policy_and_precedent; it is a Committee procedure (or maybe an information page), and should definitely not be called an "extension of the arbitration policy";
• If the Committee can't change it without community consensus, then the Any significant edit to this page should have approval from the Arbitration Committee part of the banner should be removed, and either link to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Ratification_and_amendment or just not be there, implying that the community may change it as they see fit;

• Also, if the Committee can't change it, then is it binding on the Committee to do all appointments this way?

I understand that WP:NOTBURO, but these are actually substantive questions. A lot of work has gone into making sure that procedures created by the Committee are separate from policies, and if you recall the original ratification of the arbitration policy, some support was contingent on the Committee absolutely not creating policy (e.g., support #106 by Ohconfucius, #134 by Sandstein, oppose #18, and others). Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 19:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with NE Ent and Hawkeye7 that the page is a Committee procedure. Calling it "policy", even "procedural policy", is incorrect, in my opinion. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• To expand: policies such as WP:CRAT and WP:IPBE are procedural policies. WP:CUOS, if it is modifiable by the Committee, is not. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• @NE Ent:, why make this complicated and use a free-form template? There's already the standard:

{{Policy| subcategory = procedural | textoverride = <div style="padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0.5em;">This page contains a procedure of the '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]]'''.{{resize|85%|2=Please do not change this page without the committee's authorisation.}}</div>|1 = WP:CUOS|2 = WP:AC/CUOS}}

Though it does look like the Committee is done with this request and will not action it, so no real use discussing further. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Answer from NE Ent

"Can the Committee change it," yes per own policies. It's generally understood any page title starting with Wikipedia::Arbitration falls under management of the committee, and editing there requires at least the passive approval of the committee. NE Ent 19:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Per request, suggestion:

Note the existing page header isn't actually true -- although the en-wiki arb policy page does say the committee appoints CU, it's actually the WMF page which is binding. NE Ent 02:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Hawkeye7

WP:Oversight is not an arbitration policy; it is a deletion policy. And Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight is a procedural policy that implements it. Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy, the Committee may create or modify its procedures, provided they are consistent with its scope. It is therefore the case that ArbCom can change it without community consultation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough (CUOS)

It's agreed that this is not "policy". Therefore L235's suggesting that it not bear a label calling it "policy" - even if it is qualified in such a way as to make it clear (if someone looks it the meaning of "procedural policy" in the history of a discussion linked to from the talk page of a category) is hardly bureaucratic.

I'm sure the combined intellect of those perusing these pages can come up with better terminology. (It reminds me of soap-free soap...)

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC).

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Status of WP:CUOS: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Status of WP:CUOS: Arbitrator views and discussion

• It clearly says it is a "procedural policy", which links to Category:Wikipedia procedural policies. The talk page of that category links to the discussion which created it. It is not, and does not claim to be, a "policy" in the usual sense, but rather it is a procedure (and associated information) that supports the arbitration policy - i.e. it is "an extension of the arbitration policy". I'm really struggling to understand what is not clear about any of this, and if there has been a lack of any formal adoption (if such is required) then WP:NOTBURO firmly applies I think. Thryduulf (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Rich Farmbrough: you (or anyone else) are free to make a specific request for a change to a different terminology and we'll consider it. Until that point it's not worth any more of the committee's limited time. Thryduulf (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Agree with Hawkeye and Thryduulf. AGK [•] 23:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
• As do I. Doug Weller (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
• the above three have already said all there can be on this one. Courcelles (talk) 05:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Indeed. This request can be archived at any time. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Agreed. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Advanced permissions and inactivity (December 2015)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by Beeblebrox at 22:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

motion

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Ronhjones (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [2]

Statement by Beeblebrox

In 2011, the arbitration committee unanimously approved activity requirements for functionaries. That decision is linked at the top of this section. I'm sure Ronhjones is a fine Wikipedian and administrator, but in the eight moths since being appointed, he has used the suppression tool exactly zero times. This can be verified at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/Statistics or by checking his suppression log. Ron is not the only functionary not currently meeting the minimum requirements, but as someone who has never once used the tool, this case is the "low hanging fruit" so to speak. I emailed the committee about this situation on September 13, you may find it in your archives under the title "two more or less unrelated things" (I suppose I'll have to get to the other one in another ARCA request) As there was no further action, or even a clear reply on either issue I sent a follow-up email two days ago. I have yet to receive any reply of any kind to that.

I know you guys are busy. I know this is not fun. But these activity requirements were established for a good reason: these powerful tools should only be granted to those who are actually going to use them for the betterment of the project. For whatever reason, Ron has not done so. We had to do this when I was on the committee, it only takes a few minutes to deal with. (By the way, on the off-chance that the inaction on this matter is based on an assumption that a person not using these permissions would not bother signing the new access to confidential information policy, thus taking this matter off your plate, the office has already confirmed that he has done so.)

So I guess I am asking you guys to clarify if you still support this policy and intend to take any action in this matter, or if the situation has changed in some way not immediately obvious to non-committee members. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Looks like we're done here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ronhjones

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Advanced permissions and inactivity: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Advanced permissions and inactivity: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Sorry should have emailed you yesterday. We've been in the process of this since September but somehow it stalled Completed it yesterday, announcing removal for inactivity today. Thanks for raising it with us, we are dealing with it all. Doug Weller (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Done, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Oversight permissions removed due to inactivity. Doug Weller (talk) 11:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Re-elections, maximum Positions and term limits for CU/OS Proposed

We have lots of different potential pages on Checkusers and Oversighters, so rather than drop this discussion notification on all of them, this seems a reasonable single location.

The Community Health Working Group is recommending limiting editors to a max of 2 of the following positions:

1. Sysops
2. Arbcom members
3. Checkusers
4. Oversighters

They also propose to bring in term limits for those holding these positions, with a limit on consecutive terms.

As some of those directly affected a change in this sphere, please give your views. The full proposal and talk page can can be found here.

Nosebagbear (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

These Working Group things won’t result in any actual changes on our project unless consensus is won here. Is that right? –xeno^talk 13:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

There's no good answer to that. Different strategy groups are working with different "visions" of the Wikimedia movement. One is dependent on a strong centralized controlling organization (either the WMF or some sort of successor) which is able to apply and enforce global rules to all projects and affiliated organizations. Another vision is strongly decentralized management with only issues like security, certain tech issues, and distribution of funds being centralized, and regional or local control of issues like this. There are a huge number of contradictions within the draft strategic recommendations - for example, stronger user privacy protections competing with mandatory gender-based quotas for "leadership" roles that would require disclosure of gender/sex/whatever. (Interestingly, for all the "leadership" roles I've held, several of which have (at one time or another) required me to disclose my RL name and DOB, I've never been asked that particular question.)

The recommendation is, of course, specifically designed to ignore the fact that English Wikipedia is quite different from every other project. It gets almost as much vandalism as all the rest of the projects combined. The cases our arbcom deal with will regularly deal with private information that is covered as CU or OS. We have regularly demonstrated that there are certain types of situations where both OS and CU information is involved - but the WMF confidentiality agreements are pretty specific that CU and OS can't share information with people who don't have the same permissions, which would also preclude CU and OS sharing with non-CU and non-OS arbitrators.

The recommendation is not based on anything other than "gut instinct"; there's no evidence at all that this is anything other than a solution looking for a problem. I'll note in passing that it's quite similar (except for the admin bit) to the rules from German Wikipedia, from whence the manager of Trust & Safety hails. He's a member of that strategy working group Risker (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up. This recommendation doesn't work at all. Historically all arbitrators have been administrators, and even if that changes at some point, certainly the majority will be. That would mean that no arbitrator could be a checkuser or an oversighter, which would not only mean throwing away valuable experience, but would also make it impossible for the arbs to fully evaluate arbitration matters that involve checkuser results or oversighted material. I also can't imagine that one could be fully engaged as a checkuser without having administrator rights (particularly being able to view deleted articles or revisions and block socks), and I believe it was found to be technically possible to use the oversight tool without adminship. I'll cross-post this to the Meta discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Correction: Thanks for the initial heads-up to User:Nosebagbear for the initial heads-up and to Risker for her comments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• The recommendation makes no sense, to understate. Arbs can have no sysop rights, but CU&OS is a necessity to examine all evidence. CU without sysop means you need a sysop to hand-hold you into using your right for any purpose at all, OS works just fine without the sysop bit. Now, from point 1, if CU without sysop is useless, why would anyone grant a non-administrator the CU tool to be on ArbCom (case in point: everyone who has stood as a non-admin has lost)? I note that the working group has Rosiestep and Doc James, I have faith they will be able to steer the recommendations into something plausible. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• Just to clarify from the page itself, it explicitly doesn't count sysop as one of the two, stating "Administrator and ArbCOm or CU or OS..." Likewise, it stipulates that ArbCom members would of course be granted the tools necessary for the job. Still don't think it's a good idea, nor the terms or term limits. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Oversight" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Oversight and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 19#Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Oversight until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Temporary CU for admin election scrutineers

Per a note from ArbCom, election scrutineers have historically needed CU permissions to enable their work during the election process, but we do not apparently have this noted in any policy/procedure page. Can we add it here? Maybe in a "Temporary permissions" section of the "Current process" section. Something like "Election scrutineers are granted temporary CU permissions for the duration of the scrutineering period."? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

To avoid a fork, if this is handled here please note the results over at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2025, so we don't revisit it in the next RFC if not needed. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)