Talk:Oversight policy

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Votes for deletion Several proposals have been made concerning this page. Before making a new one, please review these discussions and their results (keep, change, or no consensus).

Notification of upcoming changes to this policy[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation recently received a recommendation from the Ombuds Commission that this policy be amended. The issue at hand is the appointment of Checkusers and Oversighters and whether the group which appoints them on a project must specifically be an Arbcom or whether another, specialized committee could do it. After review, the Ombuds Commission believes, and the Foundation agrees, that there is room for a wider variety of functionary "Appointment Committees" beyond simply Arbcoms.

Accordingly, we plan to update this policy and the Checkuser policy on 26 July 2022. The changes will be as follows for the Oversight policy (removals in strikethrough and additions in bold):

On wikis without an ArbitrationAppointments Committee, the community must approve oversighters by consensus. The candidates must request it within the local community and advertise this request to the local community properly (community discussion page, mailing list, etc). After gaining consensus (at least 70–80% in pro/con voting or the highest number of votes in multiple choice elections) in their local community, and with at least 25–30 members' approval, the user should request access on Steward requests/Permissions with a link to the community's decision.

On wikis with an ArbitrationAppointments Committee elected with 25–30 members' approval, users may also be appointed by the ArbitrationAppointments Committee, unless the local community prefers independent elections. Any committee meeting these requirements, including an Arbitration Committee (ArbCom), may fulfil this role. After agreement, a member of the local ArbitrationAppointments Committee should place a request on Steward requests/Permissions. [...]

Suspicion of abuses of oversight should be discussed by each local wiki. On wikis with an approved Arbitration Committee, the committee can decide on the removal of access. On wikis without an approved Arbitration Committee, the community can vote for removal of access.

We plan to make this change on 26 July 2022. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kbrown (WMF) with regards to "On wikis with an approved Arbitration Committee, the committee can decide on the removal of access. On wikis without an approved Arbitration Committee, the community can vote for removal of access." should it be the appointments committee that can remove access? If not, I would suggest that the requirements for an "approved Arbitration Committee" be kept since otherwise committees elected without enough support, that do not have the power to appoint candidates, would be able to remove them. DannyS712 (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yea, that seems like it should be "On wikis with an approved Arbitration Committee, the arbitration committee can decide on the removal of access." -- "the committee" is ambiguous in that a community could have both an appointments committee and an arbitration committee and both of these committee names are included in the policy. — xaosflux Talk 10:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]