Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:18, 5 February 2009

This page documents an official English Wikipedia policy, handed down by the Arbitration Committee. Any significant edit to this page should should have approval from the Arbitration Committee. If in doubt, consider discussing changes on the talk page.

Click here for the current election

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.
The election is in two phases; a four-day preliminary phase during which nominations are posted, followed by a ten-day voting phase.
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 by 31 January 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) them achieving a minimum of 66% support 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.

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 #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 position.
+#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.
@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 # 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 unbanned editor who has made at least 150 mainspace edits by the first day of the calendar month before the election may vote.
+# Any editor who has made at least 150 mainspace edits by 31 January 2009 may vote.
-# Voting is by simple [[approval voting]] (voters can support but cannot oppose). Editors may vote for as many candidates as they wish, and may modify their vote during the election. Brief explanations may be included.
+# 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) them achieving a minimum of 66% support 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.