rewrite appointments |
m add another link |
||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
:''For the most recent election, see [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections/August 2009]].'' |
:''For the most recent election, see [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections/August 2009]].'' |
||
:''For further information on these tools, and the local and global policies governing their operation, see [[Wikipedia:CheckUser]] and [[WIkipedia:Oversight]].'' |
|||
== General background == |
== General background == |
Revision as of 16:25, 17 August 2009
- For the most recent election, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections/August 2009.
- For further information on these tools, and the local and global policies governing their operation, see Wikipedia:CheckUser and WIkipedia:Oversight.
General background
Appointments
Users who require the CheckUser permission are typically members of the Arbitration Committee and former Arbitration Committee members. For those users who are not, two approaches exist:
- Watchlisting the Arbcom noticeboard for an announcement,
- Making a good case to the ArbCom mailing list or to any active Arbitrator. Users are advised to initially sound out interest, discuss suitability, and check the current position via an off-list email to any active Arbitration Committee member, understanding that most times, new Checkusers are not being looked for and an exceptionally good basis would also be required.
The former is more usual, but expressions of general interest are possible at any time, and users with good reason to seek these tools sooner than a possible next election may may apply directly as described.
Appointments that are confirmed by the Arbitration Committee will be posted on Requests for permission on Meta-Wiki, a Steward will assign the permission once identification is confirmed.
Removals
Just as easily as the CheckUser permission can be approved, it can be revoked. If the Committee feels that an editor has abused CheckUser, such as by performing checks which do not qualify under one of the above criteria or inappropriately disclosing privacy related information from a CheckUser inquiry, they will immediately request a Steward to remove the permission from the editor. This may be done by any of the usual ways, including e-mail or a request on requests for permission on Meta.
Emergency requests based upon clear evidence may also be made in exceptional circumstances, the same way. In an exceptional case, and for good cause, a Steward may temporarily remove the permission, pending a decision by the Committee. The Steward should check the matter is well founded, and make clear immediately that it is a temporary response only, since such an action could lead to controversy. Removal is also possible following a complaint received by the Audit subcommittee, or following prolonged lack of use or inactivity.
Appointment methods to date
From the creation of CheckUser and Oversight, until early 2008, appointments of non-arbitrators were made by internal discussion of the Arbitration Committee only, based upon requests, and private discussion with potential candidates. Both the decision and timing were not public matters, a policy in part selected to prevent "gaming" of the system, given the seriousness of such matters.
In 2008, this method was changed. There was a specific invitation from the Arbitration Committee to any administrator interested in Checkuser permissions to volunteer himself privately, following which the community was given details of the resulting shortlist and feedback and comments were solicited - again in private to ensure neutrality and full openness. The same method was used, with slight modification, to appoint an additional oversighter in October of that year.
As of 2009, the method was again modified, with a community based election for the final stage. This method has been used in the February 2009 and August 2009 elections.
Current process
Preamble
This describes the proposed method for determining which suitably qualified and trusted editors are recommended to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for granting of CheckUser and Oversight permissions. This process is not set in stone and will inevitably change based on experience and evolving best practise. Suggestions for improvement are welcome and may be made on the talk page. Please note that CheckUser and Oversight permissions will be subject to periodic review.
Roles
- ArbCom's role is to pre-vet candidates (this includes assessment of technical competence and familiarity with applicable policy) and to maintain a list of pre-vetted candidates to be put to the community from time to time.
- The community's role is to vigorously scrutinise the pre-vetted candidates and to determine those most appropriate for CheckUser and/or Oversight.
- For legal and policy reasons, the Wikimedia Foundation has final authority over access to Checkuser and Oversight permissions.
Candidacy and vetting
- ArbCom will periodically invite applications from the community for CheckUser and Oversight permissions, although any editor may apply for pre-vetting at any time.
- ArbCom will carefully vet all applications; very clear consensus among ArbCom members is needed for a candidate to be added to the list.
- ArbCom will normally call an election (i) when there is consensus for further CheckUser and/or Oversight appointments and (ii) once there is a pool of about three pre-vetted candidates for each vacant position.
- In the event appointments are very urgently needed and there are insufficient immediately available candidates, the community will be consulted as to its wishes.
Election
- Only pre-vetted candidates may stand.
- Editors may stand for election for one or both permissions, with a separate nomination for each permission.
- Nominations will be posted two days before the beginning of voting. Candidates may post a short statement, and editors may pose questions of the candidates during this period. The voting period will be two weeks.
- 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.
- ArbCom clerks will monitor the election for decorum and proper process.
- Any editor who has made at least 150 mainspace edits prior to 15 June 2009 may vote.
- Editors may support or oppose as many candidates as they wish, and may modify their vote during the election. Comments may not be appended to votes, but may be made in the candidate's "Comments" section.
- The successful candidates will be those with the highest percentages of support, subject to (i) their achieving a minimum of 70% support in keeping with the Wikimedia Foundation Oversight Policy, and (ii) a net difference of at least 25 between their support and oppose votes.
- Editors who are arbitrators, or who have been arbitrators in the past 12 months, are disqualified from voting.
- Following the election, ArbCom will ask WMF to grant CheckUser and/or Oversight permission to the successful candidate(s) in order of votes cast. The final number of candidates recommended may be varied by ArbCom by majority vote, for example, in the event of a tie or near-tie or new vacancies arising during the election.
- The Arbitration Committee reserves the right to rescind or suspend a nomination for checkuser or oversight privileges at any time during the election/appointment process. Nominations will only be rescinded or suspended in exceptional circumstances.