Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2021 CUOS appointments

General comment

I am not going to leave this in every candidate section, just want to add that we have an excellent selection of candidates whom I can support without reservations.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

+1, every candidate is a good choice, I support appointing them all. Levivich 22:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When I get the time, I plan to go through and leave individual comments, but for the time being, I will note that I agree with Ymblanter. Before the community phase of this process, on the functionaries mailing list, I also indicated my support for all candidates that applied. In my view, it would be a net positive to the project to give all candidates listed all of the rights they have asked for. Mz7 (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is our need?

In light of the generally positive statements above, let me throw out a different question. What is our need for new OS and new CU? For me our need for new CU is clear - just look at SPI and/or the paid edit VRT queue. For me our need for new OS is much less clear. In fact I would suggest our current team is adequately staffed. I intentionally don't jump on some OS requests I could because I don't need to meet any kind of activity level because I'm an arb and still others I would jump on I get beaten to, normally by Primefac (which the stats bear out). Having unnecessary people with the permission is a security risk (more people whose accounts could be compromised) and somewhat self-defeating (more people who can see stuff, without any log of access, who by its very nature should be seen by as few people as possible). So while I am continuing to evaluate each candidate individually, I want to be transparent that I am going to be biased against voting for any given OS candidate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I regularly send oversight requests (less now than last year, mostly because I know better now what is actionable and what is not, but sometimes I had to wait for half a day for response, and in 80% cases it was Primefac. From this anecdotal evidence, which can also be connected with me editing pattern and geolocation, I conclude that more oversights will not harm.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't regularly send OS requests, but my anecdote is: the OS requests I've sent to the queue have taken around half a day to action, and all were actioned by Primefac. IRC can be substantially faster but it depends on hour of day (it's either instantaneous service, or no response). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The key to OS is not the total number but getting the timing balanced. I haven't regularly requested oversight recently, but there always used to be a gap in service between the hours of approximately 4am to 11am (UTC). There is a similar gap in admins at AIV at the same time. This is the time when most sensible people in both Western Europe and the US are thinking about sleeping. Not wanting to pick on either Barkeep49 or Primefac, but that just happens to be the time they're also most inactive, according to Xtools, and I'd wager most current OS'ers follow the same pattern. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a great point @Zzuuzz which builds on what @Ymblanter wrote. I will consider candidates' time cards when making a decision to see if any of them can help with that gap. Points like that are one reason I wanted to post this now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist notice

I think it may make sense to create a watchlist notice for the consultation. Thoughts? – Rummskartoffel 21:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me. (I'm speaking in an individual capacity.) --BDD (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]