Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2022 CUOS appointments/CU: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Comments (JJMC89): Reply |
Dreamy Jazz (talk | contribs) →Comments (JJMC89): Reply |
||
Line 75:
*::::Thanks for the reply. For what it is worth, I believe this is why we exempt OC members from the normal activity requirements, as we do not ''expect'' them to be acting on enWiki whilst being on the OC. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 08:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
*::::I'm just curious to how this model operates then if we extend Dreamy's line of thinking. If we had it so that no one with the CU flag could be part of the OC on '''any''' wiki, then we would have an inexperienced and potentially tone deaf like a certain 2016 decision that was handed down. We need people who are experienced using the tools in the first place to provide the viewpoint of a checkuser. Of course, i'm not speaking when the homewiki applies. Before the OC really became a thing, ArbCom had [[WP:AUSC|AUSC]] which was set to review our own checkusers and functionaries. It was formed of 3 community members and 3 arbs (with CU). Now, with AUSC gone, ArbCom returned that right back to itself. As much as I hate to say it, there have been times, without drudging up any names, where a local oversight committee has benefited the community over having the Ombuds look into a case. Do I respect some people may have reservations about emailing for the appearance that they might leak the case or be involved even when they shouldn't be? Yes. But that is where the selection process handled by the WMF is particularly important to get people who will keep their integrity. So I think it's particularly counter-productive to take aim at being on the OC as a CU, because in reality, outside of recusals, it's enhancing the OC. -- [[User talk:AmandaNP|<span style="color:white;background-color:#8A2DB8"><b>Amanda</b> (she/her)</span>]] 12:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
*:::::The way that I see it is that the OC needs to have a clearly visible view that all their members are separated from any case that could come before them. Of course people who go and join the OC won't change their opinions on people based on whether or not they hold CU rights, but from my point of view if I was a new user I would want to see "separation of powers" even if this is just a perception thing.
*:::::However, this is just a minor concern and not a reason I would use to oppose anyone outright; While I wouldn't hold CU/OS while being a OC, I wouldn't be particularly bothered if someone else did. [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">'''Jazz'''</i>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' | ''[[Special:Contribs/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]''</sup> 14:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
* I've worked with JJMC89 on various technical things, including [[mw:Pywikibot|Pywikibot]], they're knowledgeable, collegial and in general, it's always a pleasure to work with them. [[User:Legoktm|Legoktm]] ([[User talk:Legoktm|talk]]) 00:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
* Although there was not a "bad" response to by question answered above, I still have reservations about COI with OC members. I think there should be an arms-length break there, so this should be either/or. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 20:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
| |||