Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2022 CUOS appointments/CU: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Comments (JJMC89): cmt |
→Comments (JJMC89): Reply |
||
Line 74:
*:::My concern is not specific to any one editor, and in my opinion any OC holding the CU right is not okay. The OC needs to be able to make difficult and possibly controversial decisions about CUs. Of course I trust that any CU would while on the OC would ensure that they focus on the OC, but I think it entirely reasonable for a user reporting abuse of the CU tool to not feel confident in the process if a user part of the OC has CU rights, especially on the wiki the problem occurred on, due to the perceived conflict of interest. [[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> 08:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
*::::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)
* 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)
| |||