Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-02-24/Arbitration report
Appearance
Arbitration report
Arbitration motion regarding CheckUser & Oversight inactivity
At 04:46, 17 February 2016, the Arbitration committee voted to have the CheckUser permissions of Deskana removed. Later that same day, the committee released a motion on inactive users with CheckUser and Oversight permissions:
The following is an ArbCom internal process. It supplements the ArbCom procedure on CheckUser/Oversight permissions and inactivity.
- Arbitrators will check the CheckUser and Oversight statistics at the end of each month to identify functionaries who have not met the activity requirements in the preceding three months.
- If a functionary has not met the requirements, they will be sent an email notification reminding them of the required activity levels and asking if and when they plan to return to activity.
- If within two weeks a functionary does not meet the activity requirements or reply with an acceptable plan to return to activity, an arbitrator will send them a second email notification. This message will alert the functionary that their advanced permission(s) (CheckUser and/or Oversight) will be removed after two weeks unless they respond with a plan to return to activity.
- If an arbitrator objects to a functionary's advanced permission(s) being removed automatically, they may notify the rest of the Arbitration Committee and initiate a discussion.
- If a functionary has not responded to the second notification within two weeks or has not provided a plan to return to activity, and no arbitrator has objected, an arbitrator will post an announcement on the Arbitration Committee noticeboard announcing the change and thanking the functionary for their prior service, and will request removal of the permission(s) at the Stewards' noticeboard.
- If an arbitrator has objected to automatic removal, a motion will be initiated and the Arbitration Committee will be notified via the arbcom-l mailing list. After two weeks the discussion will be closed and the permission(s) removed per the step above unless there are at least three arbitrators opposing removal, in which case it can be left open for more comments or a normal vote can be proposed.
This motion was made after a 10–1 vote, with four arbitrators having abstained or not voted.
Discuss this story
Having done one or two checkusers checks in my time, can I say with disappointment that there is a consideration that activity with the tool is the predeterminator for retention of access. We want CU checks run for reasons to maintain access to tools??? I would much prefer to see activity based around active communication, consultation, and managing the requisite queues, answering specific questions relating to CU and the undertaking of audit activity of existing logs. Naturally there is balance, and if someone is not using the tools for extended periods then they do not need access to the tools, it would seem to me that a mature approach is needed, rather than a simple measure of use of tool. :-/ I am a little disappointed that the ArbCom is not seeking community consensus on this matter, and is become an exclusive decision-making body, rather than a committee for arbitration. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]