Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2022 CUOS appointments/CU: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Comments (JJMC89): Reply |
|||
Line 77:
* 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)
*:{{u|Xaosflux}}, same question I asked {{u|Dreamy Jazz}} above. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 08:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
*::@[[User:Primefac|Primefac]] as the number of functionaries is rightfully limited, adding a functionary whose appointment will limit their ability to exercise their ability (either here ''for'' our community, or in their capacity as oversight ''of'' our community). I also don't think the prior examples were appropriate; the OC is '''very limited''' in capacity and setting up a situation where they are less effective in the audit of actions in our community is something I see as a negative. None of this reservation is specific to the candidate. WP:CUOS is an arbitrary process from the enwiki communities perspective, so there is no reason it has to happen "now". A possible workaround would be that arbcom can appoint this candidate when they are no longer elsewise engaged in the OC. I would also prefer that existing functionaries that want to join the OC in the future resign from being local functionaries during their term, specifically so they don't have to recuse from potential conflicts and can better serve the communities. — [[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> 09:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
----
| |||