Wikipedia talk:Functionaries

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Functionaries as the public face of the encyclopaedia[edit]

I'm not convinced this point is accurate. When newspapers cover Wikipedia, more often and not the people identified as the project's public face are Jimmy Wales, Wikimedia employees (i.e. Jay Walsh), OTRS/volunteer representatives (i.e. David Gerard), or "normal" editors involved in the story at hand. I've never seen a CheckUser/Oversighter/Mediation Committee member or even Arbitrator quoted or referred to because of their status on an issue unrelated to that status. Take this story for example: a vandal, User:Gen Bigjegs, regular editors User:Ferrylodge and User:Tvoz, a Wikimedia bigwig (Wales), and an admin (User:Swatjester) are quoted or referred to. The outside world does not care or even know about functionaries, as far as is evident. Skomorokh 12:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Open to recall[edit]

Is this "may be open to recall" intended to require participation in CAT:AOR for functionaries? Nathan T (formerly Avruch) 14:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I would think that unlikely, given that functionaries need not be administrators and that AOR is a farce. Skomorokh 14:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I guess I better stick up for AOR... the idea and the process are not a farce, although some of the individual recalls haven't come out as optimally as one might desire. But I suspect, that aside, that the writer of this didn't have AOR in mind. Which is good, since I doubt the community would accept making something akin to AOR mandatory. And AOR was never designed to be mandatory either. ++Lar: t/c 15:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I figured not, I suppose my comment should have been phrased to say that the wording was unclear. If the intent is to make the functionary roles subject to community recall, that should be made more clear (and definitive, optional procedures always play havoc with proposed policies). Nathan T (formerly Avruch) 15:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Probably would be best to get some sense of what was intended from the author(s)... as written now it's unclear. I believe functionaries (the CUs and OVs) have always served 'at the pleasure of arbcom'. But how has that changed now that there was a round of elections for CUs and OVs? Not clear to me. ++Lar: t/c 15:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
We could change "A Wikipedia functionary may be open to community recall if..." to "A Wikipedia functionary may have their status and technical access removed if community consensus or the Arbitration Committee find that..." or similar. Skomorokh 15:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Do it. good change. ++Lar: t/c 15:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm wary of messing with someone else's proposal, but given that this is in the Wikipedia space, does consensus overrule the wishes of the author? Skomorokh 15:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. If they weren't ready for their "writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others", they probably should have kept it in userspace for a while first. I'll do it if you're not keen, but trust me, it's fine to do it. ++Lar: t/c 16:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Alright, it's done; thanks for the clarification. Skomorokh 16:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I would just like to put emphasis on this. Please edit mercilessly. --ScWizard (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Relevant link[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator conduct communicates a similar point to what the majority of this page tries to convey. I appreciate the thought behind this page, but why is another separate rule needed? Would it not suffice to add a single sentance to the appropriate user role policy page noting that there are similar expectations of conduct with a link to that section of the admin policy? Just a thought. --Vassyana (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

There isn't really anywhere official that I am aware of that outlines who functionaries are, what their proper functions are, and what is expected of them. That's not to say that could not be done in a section of some other policy, but it does need to be done. Skomorokh 01:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Pretty much per Vassyana. Most functionaries are admins and the term functionary as used here does not mesh with what roles are given access to the functionaries mail list (ie, crats and clerks aren't on it), so that'll cause confusion. I think this page is redundant and unnecessary. A condensation of it into Vassyana's link may be a good step though. RlevseTalk 01:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
This page was created because you lot seemed to have some pretty clear ideas in mind about what functionaries were and how misbehaving ones ought to be dealt with, none of which were known before to the rest of us. Why don't you and Vassyana discuss with Kiril and the others supporting the functionary-related remedy in the ongoing arbitration case and decide collectively what your stance is, then get back to us. Skomorokh 01:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Merge this with something else if you wish, but it's a principle that needs expressing, somewhere. ++Lar: t/c 02:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

What is a functionary?[edit]

This question is kinda related to the discussion above, but probably deserves its own section. What exactly is a functionary? The functionaries mailing list contains current/former arbitrators, checkusers and oversighters, and a few people from the foundation. This proposal describes a functionary as "an editor that performs a specialised role and has privileged technical access on the Wikipedia project." The people on the functionaries list obviously qualify. But do the other groups listed in this proposal? KnightLago (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: MedCom members have no privileged technical access. By current definition here, they are not "functionaries." KillerChihuahua?!? 15:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Mailing list and other groups[edit]

The en-functionaries mailing list only covers some of the groups mentioned here, so the definitions of "functionary" are already diverging. The inclusion of mediation committee members, bot approval group people, and bureaucrats probably does fit with the wider definition of a functionary. One that is missing from the list is stewards. Although stewards are meta and cross-wiki, er, functionaries, it is helpful to know which functionaries on en-Wikipedia are also stewards. I think it is only Lar and Redux for en-Wikipedia (though others, such as Jimbo and Cary are also on the mailing lists). Carcharoth (talk) 05:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Identities of Functionaries[edit]

I've been looking at a variety of pages and am having trouble figuring out exactly who qualifies as a functionary. The definition at Wikipedia:Functionary doesn't mention former ArbCom members, yet the mailing list here shows 20 functionaries in that category. This list shows 37 former arbitrators. Wikipedia:Functionary indicates ArbCom clerks are functionaries, the list linked from that page shows both current and former clerks, whilst the mailing list subscriber list includes no clerks. As Carcharoth has indicated above, the definitions are diverging, and I suggest that a clear definition is needed.

I am also concerned about how the following declaration will work in practice: A Wikipedia functionary is held to a higher standard of behavior than a normal editor, especially in the areas related to their function. If a functionary shows lack of judgment in the area related to the function they hold, even without abusing their tools or status as a functionary, their status as a functionary may be revoked. It appears that a revocation of functionary status may be a remedy in an ArbCom case in the near future. If the sole visible effect of that is removal from this mailing list then the rebuke is extremely obscure. Perhaps a better idea would be a centralised list of all current functionaries, and below that a list of former functionaries - divided perhaps as retired (who could return to being active should they desired) and dismissed. In the case of dismissed functionaries, a dismissal reason could be given and linked to relevant materials as appropriate. A similar categorisation could be used with those who are no longer active but who would otherwise have been eligible for functionary status. For instance, I assume that Picaroon would fall into the former category, whilst Essjay would fall into the latter.

In light of the rebuke implicit in functionary-status removal, fairness demands clarity as to who qualifies for the status and any reasons why they may not have it. Looking quickly at just the list former arbitrators, Jdforrester, Charles Matthews, and SimonP are active users and former ArbCom members and as such appear to be qualified for functionary status. However, they are not on the list at WP:FUNC. Without clarification, this could be taken to imply a revocation has occurred. Perhaps I am wrong in interpreting them as qualified. Perhaps the list at WP:FUNC is wrong. I suggest that clarification is needed. EdChem (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Cogent analysis. The creation of this page was precipitated by the related arbitration remedies in the West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria case. There, "functionary" was defined in a way that seemed to be more than "member of the functionaries-en mailing list", discussing the "status" of a functionary, and I suppose this page is an attempt to answer the question of what the remedies were referring to by the term. A clarification from the Committee on what they mean by the term would clear up a lot of this confusion, I think. Skomorokh 01:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, the definition of functionary is the members of "functionaries-en", which is a list created by the Arbitration Committee to split off a lot of the broader discussions that dont need to be on arbcom-l, and consists of people who have been granted the Oversight or Checkuser role, and former arbitrators (most of whom have had either one of those roles, as far as I know). Some of our procedures may also be updated to direct some non-arbitration related matters to the functionaries-en list, reducing the Arbitration Committee workload. As a result, the members of this list should maintain a higher standard both in private forums and in public, otherwise the list cant be used for discussing very sensitive issues. The other groups of people listed on this page, such as BAG and crats, are chosen because they are well respected Wikipedians, however they are not regularly involved in confidential information. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Another thought... will the at large members of the Audit Sub-Committee qualify as functionaries? I think the three appointees already qualify, but it is something to think about given at large members will ultimately be community elected - or perhaps eligibility to be elected will require existing CU or OS permissions. However, such a restriction could lead to community disquiet, in that an oversight body should ideally be composed of those with the confidence of the community, who would then be granted whatever permissions are necessary to carry out their responsibilities. In any event, some more things to consider, IMO. EdChem (talk) 05:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
The members of the audit subcommittee become functionaries when they are appointed to the sub-committee, and they are added to the mailing list. It is a requirement that they are identified to the WMF before they are given tools or access.
user:Tznkai did not hold either Oversight or Checkuser prior to being appointed.
Alison is a former OS/CU, and has been kept on the list, so I doubt that Tznkai would be turfed off without a good reason. His status on the functionaries list might be given some thought after the elections.
If I recall correctly, the committee didn't put any rules around who could be elected to the audit sub-committee, so it will be up to the community to define that if they wish. I am pretty sure that the community would desire candidates who have not had Oversight or Checkuser (a fresh set of eyes), however the community may also want to elect people with experience. There is only one way to find out ... John Vandenberg (chat) 07:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

SimonP was invited to the functionaries-en mailing list, however I think he hasn't accepted. Jdforrester is on functionaries-en, and I have updated WP:ARBCOM to better reflect this. I am not sure why Charles Matthews isnt on the list; he could be as a "former arbitrators in good standing", if he wishes to be. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Am I a functionary? Stifle (talk) 09:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Nope, you're safe! ;-) John Vandenberg (chat) 11:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed BAG[edit]

To put BAG on the same level as CheckUsers or Oversighters seems absurd to me. I've removed BAG right now pending further discussion. The same arguments probably also apply to SPI clerks. Thoughts, etc. appreciated here. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There does not seem to be any coherent definition of what a functionary is. I suggest a position with formal authority derived (typically but not necessarily through the Arbitration Committee) from the WMF or Jimbo Wales, whose functions cannot be carried out by an ordinary editor/administrator. Skomorokh 19:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Functionaries are defined at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee#functionaries-en. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
The membership of a mailing list is, not the rationale behind its composition, or the expectations surrounding access and status. Skomorokh 20:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
"Arbitration Committee members and former members, CheckUser and Oversight operators, and selected other editors" - I agree, "selected other editors" is vague, but this is a discrete set of parameters, and is further clarified as editors with "privileged access". Insofar as expectations, "The list also has a role in supporting the Arbitration Committee" - so given that set, I suppose an argument could be made for inclusion of clerks, but are they on the list? No such rationale is possible for MedCom or BAG. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Even setting aside the selected others, the inclusion criteria are insufficiently clear - especially if removal of functionary status is some sort of rebuke. There are former members of ArbCom who are still active on WP but who are not on the mailing list - Charles Matthews and Jdforrester. I don't think that every CU and OS operator is defined as a functionary according to the mailing list either. If losing functionary status is meant to be a rebuke - and thus someone nominally eligible not having it would logically indicate there has been some past issue - then it is critical for the eligibility and membership to be absolutely clear. With ArbCom in the process of stripping functionary status from one editor, this really needs sorting out. Someone eligible to be a functionary might choose to decline the status on workload grounds (for instance), and this should be recorded somewhere to distinguish the situation from an ArbCom de-functionary-isation. EdChem (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet more ambiguity[edit]

Category:Wikipedia functionaries has its own version of the state of play. Skomorokh 21:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh, which includes all admins, which would make a certain amount of sense... clearly the term is being used differently in different AOs within Wikipedia. Good catch, Skomorokh. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
The inclusion of admins in that category was noticed when we settled on the name "functionary", and it is annoying, but we couldnt come up with another name.(the discussion was back when the new list was proposed, somewhere) The functionaries themselves would like a better name as well; suggestions desperately needed. John Vandenberg (chat) 18:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
You could use proctor, in the sense of appointed by the WMF/ArbCom to oversee investigations (i.e. CheckUser) or edits (i.e. Oversight). It's a little pretentious, but it would free up "functionary" to cover "anyone in a position of formal authority". Skomorokh 18:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC on impeachment of functionaries.[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Impeachment of Functionaries--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Scope and definition of functionaries[edit]

I think we can distinguish between three types of positions/status, global (for all wmf wikis), and local (for one wiki, here enwiki), possibly with associated rights:

  • community positions, examples:
    global: none (global sysop, if enabled, would be a candidate, but they wouldn't have any privileged access on enwiki)
    local: administrator, bureaucrat, bag member, project or process director/coordinator, medcom member ...
  • foundation positions, examples:
    global: system administrator, ombudsmen, wmf staff member (see m:Special global permissions)
    local: none
  • positions involving the community and the foundation, examples:
    global: steward (community-elected, requires wmf approval and identification)
    local: checkuser (appointed by arbcom, now with regular community elections, but not binding, requires wmf approval and identification), oversighter (same), arbitrator (community elections, requires approval by wmf - Jimbo - and identification), OTRS member (community consulted, final decision by otrs admins, requires identification)

Foundation positions are not within our or arbcom's jurisdiction, and global positions are not really the subject here (see rather Wikipedia:Global rights policy), so let's consider others. Community positions are those involving only the community, they do not require wmf approval or identification; their associated rights are not highly sensitive. Bureaucrats are among those, and I think they should not be considered functionaries. Those positions are well-covered, even if removal of admin or bureaucrat rights is still an unresolved subject, and we shouldn't be concerned by those here.

So I think functionaries should be positions involving both the enwiki community and the foundation, in their promotion, due to approval or identification, which includes: checkusers, oversighters, arbitrators and otrs members.

To say a word on rights, generally a position involves rights, although not necessarily wiki rights on its own (e.g., otrs), but some rights (generally, 'low-level') doesn't constitute a position per se, for examples, global rights: global rollbackers, global bot, and local rights: autoconfirmed, rollbacker, ip block exempt, etc, do not give any special position. Cenarium (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No special rights are associated with BAG members or MedCom, nor do "project or process director/coordinator', whatever is meant by that, have special rights. They are not Functionaries as defined by ArbCom. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
BAG have the right to confer the bot flag to user accounts, no? Skomorokh 18:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
They make a determination and then a b'crat does the flagging. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Those are positions, not necessarily with associated wiki rights. BAG members are not functionaries according to this classification, functionaries are : checkusers, oversighters, arbitrators and otrs volunteers (maybe others). To make it clearer, I'd say it's positions involving approval (even if procedural) by the foundation and identification.
By project or process director/coordinator, I mean for example the TFA director, WikiProject Military history coordinators, etc. Cenarium (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Just to note: OTRS members are not appointed/elected from within the community; in fact, they're granted access at the Foundation level, and individual projects do not determine access. There isn't an application for OTRS permissions anywhere on this project that I could find, nor a list of en-wikipedia editors who have OTRS permissions. Risker (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The OTRS volunteering process is described here. Even though ARBCOM has no authority over OTRS as of now, I don't see why we shouldn't include them. Their role is kind of official and they fit with the description one would expect form a functionary, a position beyond the community, involving sensitive access or public relationship. I think we should think on how to deal with OTRS members too, maybe see if ARBCOM should have a jurisdiction over them. There's a list of en.wikipedia OTRS members at the main meta page. Cenarium (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The term Functionary[edit]

I think that functionary is too basic of a term. It essentially means anyone who performs a particular function.

And that would seem to even include various clerks.

I think something which ties all of these together is its everyone who has access to information/tools which directly deal with/oversee privacy issues.

It seems to me that the better way to do this would be to usurp the word "oversight" for this, and call the ability to see/mark a revision "hidden", something else. (Like "meta-delete" and "see meta-deletions" or some such. Which would be similar in naming to bigdelete.) - jc37 21:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Scope[edit]

We need to keep the scope of this narrow and match what is within the power of ArbCom to implement. OTRS volunteers are not chosen by ArbCom or the Community and we do not have the authority to remove them from the position. FloNight♥♥♥ 10:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

See my comment here. I don't see why we should restrict the scope only to matters within the Arbcom's current jurisdiction. In my mind, functionary implies a position with privileged access to nonpublic information, or public relationship, thereby involving the wmf at some point and making it a position more official than normal community positions. A page to discuss how to handle those positions, and their interrelations, makes sense. For OTRS especially; I do think we'd need to clarify the relations between the OTRS admins and the enwiki community, and arbcom. This is an important position, that fits with the description given and its conclusion (e.g. "higher standard of behavior"). I can foresee situations where OTRS members may be taken in controversies, or his/her judgment or representativity may be called into question, we should think on how to deal with it. Cenarium (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree; this is not just about ArbCom. OTRS fits well with the general philosophy of a "Functionary". Happymelon 22:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The word Functionary was adopted by ArbCom to address the positions where we appoint users such as Oversight and Checkuser. If the term is used in additional ways it will be confusing. For practical reasons, the term can not be used in several ways with different meanings. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
But I'm not aware of ArbCom saying, or trying to say, "We have authority to create and remove all Functionaries". As such, the definitions are not mutually-exclusive: there is no reason why "John Smith is stripped of Functionary status", "Jane Smith is created as a Functionary", etc, is mutually-exclusive with 'Functionary' containing groups ArbCom has no control over. ArbCom can't remove OTRS access, so they couldn't claim (if OTRS was included) to control all Functionary access. It would only be confusing if they did attempt to do so. Happymelon 08:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia and the overall Wikimedia sites grow constantly, local and global structures and their interactions are getting more and more complex. We need a general and coherent definition of this 'functionary' status, to deal with that kind of positions and rights likely to develop. In a few years from now, we may need local stewards, and other 'very high-level' userrights or sensitive access yet to be created. If the arbcom definition is simply someone with access to the en-functionaries mailing list, then it won't make it, as it will be too restrictive and doesn't describe associated rights. Past Arbitration Committee member doesn't make sense, since, as pointed out below, it's not actionable.
So, to have a clear definition once and for all, I'd say a local (resp. global) functionary is any local (resp. global) position, with associated rights, requiring formal approval or identification by the wmf for access. So checkusers, oversighters, arbitrators and OTRS members are functionaries on en.wikipedia, while stewards are global functionaries. If not covered by those, there would also be: access to certain private mailing lists, and maybe others. I think this is clear-cut and makes the difference with purely communal positions, like admin, bureaucrat, etc. It involves privacy or public relationship and overall, higher requirements than for other positions by appealing to the wmf.
The fact arbcom adopted the word 'functionary' for its own purposes, the en-functionary mailing list, doesn't mean it can't be changed, or in this case, extended (unless you make a ruling on that :). Otherwise, the definition will remain unclear, and it will be difficult to know how to handle those in a global and unified perspective. We could make distinctions: those for which arbcom have full authority to manage, those for which the admins are elsewhere, so you have to think on how to deal with this. For OTRS, maybe we can think on (non-binding) requests from arbcom to OTRS admins, or use of on-wiki consensus for removal of OTRS rights, and see what OTRS admins think of that. For those under the purview of arbcom, we may want to consider community-driven removal of rights, too. This has been vastly discussed for admin and bureaucrat status, not so much for those functionary positions. Arbcom has ruled to remove inactive checkusers and oversighters, I think it's done too for OTRS members. We could gain to have this clarified and organized in a coherent fashion (in analogy, we have a wp:global rights policy). A first step for OTRS would be to ask OTRS admin's views. Cenarium (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Past Arbitration Committee members?[edit]

I am not sure what enforceable measures can be put in place for past Arbitration Committee members. No matter what else happens, they are always going to be former members of the Committee, even if they have no other permissions or access. Can someone please clarify what they would envision here? Risker (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

True, but former Committee members can be removed from the mailing list associated with functionaries and have their status as a functionary revoked. This may happen to Jayjg in the present Israel / Palestine case. A community impeachment process of some sort will also be needed, because Functionaries should be removable when they lose the confidence of the community... even if they retain the confidence (or protection) of the present Committee members. EdChem (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
So essentially, you are saying that a functionary is someone who is subscribed to the Functionaries-L mailing list? A significant number of former Arbitration Committee members do not subscribe to the list. Risker (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
There are at least three other sections of this talk page that include discussions relevant to this question. You can make of them what you will, 'cos they seem to me to make the situation as clear as mud. It appears to me that it is likely that all members of the mailing list are functionaries, but whether there are non-mailing list functionaries is not at all clear. EdChem (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

EdChem, so you are essentially saying that the Community has the ability to say who that ArbCom has the right to consult with about internal matters? I don't see that as workable. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the AC ultimately answerable to the community? Anything the AC does, we can undo if push came to shove, either via elections and terminating the offending AC members, or by simple (obviously broad) community consensus. The more I think about this sort of thing, lately, is that the community--not Jimmy--is actually in the "Founder" role, able to do a monarch's action of sweeping away a bad action or member from the Committee.
There would be nothing to stop individual arbs from pinging a given ex arb, or even a "fired" one, but former Arbs should be included in this, to be removed from any access, even with the potential to be demoted all the way down to 'normal' editor status... if circumstances should dictate that. A formal such decision would basically be a notice that the AC officially no longer considers the ex-Arb to ever have priviledged access again without rerunning through the whole process, including a fresh AC election. No one is really above that, not even Jimmy. rootology (C)(T) 15:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify--the stripping of a "Functionary" in my mind means that you're either demoted to 1) Just an editor, or 2) just an admin, with any special mail subscriptions (ex-arb list, Arb list, checkuser+oversight with associated lists); or any other current or future "magic" access that a "new" admin or editor wouldn't enjoy... gone. Is that the ultimate goal, or something else? rootology (C)(T) 15:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The dynamics of each situation will differ and that needs to be taken into account. In some instances full access to internal mailing lists will need to be removed. I can see other instance when that would not be the case. Plus, the structure of communication in Arbitration related matters is fluid now. I'm not going to lock us into anything that might not be in the best interest of the Community because of an ideologically rigid interpretation of the line of authority. We need to think practical as much as we think ideological. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
That makes sense. If I recall correctly, the only demoted Functionaries to date were Essjay & FT2 (but those may have been 'forced' resiginations...) and Jayjg now. Did any of these three retain access to the ex-Arb mail list? rootology (C)(T) 16:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The structure of ArbCom's communication system changed early this year. ArbCom-l became a mailing only for sitting arbs. This was more or less simultaneous with FT2's resignation. Former arbs were invited to participate in the new Funct-l. FT2 is subscribed to Funct-l and participates there regularly as a person with checkuser and oversight access. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, I thought there were 3 lists now: ex-arb, live-arb, and functionaries for the rest (in addition to the respective oversight/CU lists). But, there is no ex-arb I see now, just Functionaries. All I can really suggest then is that if someone loses a bit/right under this, they should lose all the associated list access under it at the same time, to the lowest required level of list access required for them to operate whatever tools they have left. rootology (C)(T) 16:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
There is another mailing list that is defunct. It was started in 2008 for sitting arbs. We abandoned it for all practical purposes but it still exists. The Audit Subcommittee has a separate mailing list. Jimbo does not have access to this list. My preference is that he does not have access to this list. I think as we begin to move away from having him make decisions as a Founder and have other groups do it, that it is better for him to not be on the list because it makes it murky in peoples minds about who is making the decisions. Jimbo is on the Funct-l list and makes substantive comments as does Mike Godwin and Cary Bass. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Policy?[edit]

The page itself says it's a proposal, but it's included in hte list of policies. Peter jackson (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

OTRS[edit]

Currently, as the page stands, OTRS members fit the definition of a functionary. If this is not currently so, please edit the definition to exclude OTRS members. New and experienced users alike are being confused. hmwithτ 10:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

OTRS is not included in the definition.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 06:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
It was in the version of the page at the time of my post (link). The page said "A Wikipedia functionary is an editor that performs a specialised role and has privileged technical access on the Wikipedia project." That includes members of OTRS. Now, it mentions that it has to do with ArbCom, so it's been taken care of. hmwithτ 18:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Definition?[edit]

There seems to be at least five definitions of "functionary" being thrown around:

  1. "Anyone who has a community-sanctioned position with special responsibilities." This would include various clerks, MedCom, BAG, and so on.
  2. "Anyone who has userrights besides user/autoconfirmed." Although I don't see anyone seriously considering "bot", "rollback", and so on.
  3. "Anyone who has userrights sysop or 'above'."
  4. "Anyone who has userrights 'above' sysop."
  5. "Anyone who has to identify themselves to the Foundation."
  6. "Members of the functionaries-en mailing list only." (added 11:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC))

All of the above also include ArbCom, despite that there seems to be no actual requirement (besides perhaps community expectation) that an Arb have any special userrights. And it's probably moot, anyway, as all Arbs seem to be CheckUsers/Oversighters as well.

It seems this page is using something between #2 and #5 (all the examples are #5, but it doesn't actually exclude #2), User:NoSeptember/Functionaries uses #4, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee#functionaries-en (mostly?) uses #5, and Category:Wikipedia functionaries seems to use #1 except that someone has recently removed BAG (despite this and this).

My personal preference would be either #4 or #1, but I really don't care which definition you choose. In any case, though, you should actually choose one and apply it consistently. Anomie 14:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: Before joining the discussion below, User:Promethean unilaterally changed the category to match definition #6. Anomie 11:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that we urgently need to agree on one definition before we go any further. To go roughly in ascending order of stringency, we have the following groups to consider:
  1. Everyone
  2. Rollbackers, Account-creators, IPBE, etc
  3. Admins
    1. Clerks/MedCom, BAG, etc
    2. Bureaucrats
  4. OTRS
    1. ArbCom
    2. Oversight, CheckUser
  5. Global groups (Steward, Sysadmin, Ombudsmen, etc)
I don't think anyone is seriously considering "Everyone" or "Rollbacker etc", nor Global groups at the other end of the scale. ArbCom's definition currently only encompases group 6, while Category:Wikipedia functionaries encompases groups 3-6.
Rather than ask everyone "do you favour combination X?", it would be much more productive to treat each group separately. I doubt anyone disagrees that group 6 (ArbCom, CU, OS) should be included. What are people's thoughts on the other groups, individually? Happymelon 15:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Functionary includes groups with privileged special access, In this case Arbitration Committee members and former members, CheckUser, Oversight and selected WMF officals are privy. In terms of the English Wikipedia, Global groups do not count. Nor does OTRS, BAG, admins, crats, clerks or medcom etc. which is more of a administrative role than a privy one. The membership of the official functionaries mailing list confirms this view and I doubt that will change. see WP:FUNCTIONARIES   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 06:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
OTRS is "privileged special access", requiring identification and approval from the WMF in the same manner as oversight and checkuser. Why should it not be included? I'm glad to hear your position, but it is not the unequivocal statement of 'facts' you present it as. There is no fundamental requirement that the Community's definition of a Functionary coincide exactly with the Committee's; it is perfectly acceptable for the Community's to be a superset, with the Committee only considering those members of the larger group over which they have jurisdiction. Happymelon 08:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I feel that having even two definitions for Functionary is not only confusing but inappropriate. Hence we should try and stick to arbcom's use of the word and not our own interpretation of it. However can we agree that things such as sysops, crats and administrative bodies such as bag, medcom etc are technically not functionaries? and that its is only OTRS that is disputed?   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 10:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't disagree with that, others might. ArbCom hasn't explicitly said "this is a Functionary", only "these are the people who have access to functionaries-en" (WP:ARBCOM#functionaries-en). There's no reason why that's incompatible with a definition "Functionaries are everyone with special privileged access, requiring confirmation from WMF"; functionaries-en then becomes "the mailing list for functionaries exclusively associated with enwiki", which is a perfectly reasonable subdivision. Happymelon 11:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I was looking over the new WP:ARBCOM pages, and it occurs to me that perhaps there's an easier way to define this.

The "clerks" mailing list presumes that these are arbitration committee clerks.

Why can't this be merely about arbitration committee functionaries.

That is, those over whom the arbitration committee has purview/overview.

That would include everyone that flonight notes above, presumably, and essentially all those whom this page was presumably intended to cover. - jc37 05:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why we should only be concerned with Arbcom functionaries here, it would be too restrictive in the long term, and already for OTRS. If we say functionaries are positions requiring approval or identification by the WMF (because it involves privacy or public relationship), the question is : how do we handle those on enwiki ? Should we involve Arbcom, the community at large, in the granting and removal of the rights ? Which ones should be on the purview of Arbcom ? What about the balance of power ? It would help to have a centralized page to discuss and organize all that. On a related note, it came to light recently that two elected arbs had not been identified to the wmf, or there were uncertainty on this, so it would help to clarify that arbs have to identify to the wmf too. As Happy‑melon points out, the arbcom definition can be retrieved from the general one. Cenarium (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. I'd say you've hit it on the head, Jc: the definition that's relevant to ArbCom (those with access to functionaries-l) can quite acceptably be adding the additional restriction of "... and under the jurisdiction enwiki ArbCom" to a more general definition of a Functionary; "a position requiring identification to, and authorisation from, WMF". Happymelon 22:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I have reworded the page to include OTRS in the 'general' definition of Functionaries, but explained the subset that is under the jurisdiction of ArbCom. At the least, I hope this edit can be a trigger for further discussion. Happymelon 18:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for comments on the Audit Subcommittee[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has conducted an internal review of the Audit Subcommittee and is now seeking comment from the community, in particular about the subcommittee's effectiveness to date and ongoing representation from community delegates ("at-large members").

As the October 2009 election yielded few candidates relative to the number of seats available, it has been suggested that filling the non-arbitrator positions by appointment after community consultation (similar to the previous round of CU/OS appointments) would attract a greater number of suitably qualified candidates.

It has also been suggested that greater numbers of community delegates be appointed to ensure adequate ongoing community representation. Should a sufficient number of suitable candidates apply, the committee will appoint three "primary members" along with a number of "standby members" (who will also receive the CheckUser and Oversight privileges) and would stand in should a primary member become inactive or be unable to hear a particular case.

Comments are invited about the above, as well as any other general comments about the Audit Subcommittee. The Arbitration Committee would like to thank outgoing community members Dominic, Jredmond, and MBisanz for their patience and continued participation on the subcommittee while this review process is ongoing.

The next call for applications is provisionally scheduled for 20 February 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xenotalk 18:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Call for applications[edit]

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee.

The Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC") was established by the Arbitration Committee to investigate complaints concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia, and to provide better monitoring and oversight of the CheckUser and Oversight positions, and use of the applicable tools.

Matters brought before the subcommittee may be time-sensitive and subcommittee members should be prepared and available to discuss cases promptly so they may be resolved in a timely manner. Sitting subcommittee members are expected to actively participate in AUSC proceedings and may be replaced should they become inactive. All subcommittee members are subject to the relevant local and global policies and guidelines concerning CheckUser and Oversight.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the appointments page for further information. The application period is scheduled to close 7 March 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xenotalk 23:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Audit Subcommittee appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates[edit]

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-b@lists.wikimedia.org.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with any other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 31 March 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xenotalk 00:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Audit Subcommittee appointments (2011)[edit]

Effective 1 April 2011, Bahamut0013 (talk · contribs), Courcelles (talk · contribs), and Keegan (talk · contribs) are appointed as community representatives to the Audit Subcommittee. The period of appointment will be 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012. AGK (talk · contribs) is designated as an alternate member of the subcommittee and will become a full member should one of the appointees resign their role during the term. The Arbitration Committee thanks all of the candidates, as well as the many members of the community who participated in the appointment process for these roles.

The Arbitration Committee also extends its thanks to Dominic (talk · contribs), Jredmond (talk · contribs), and MBisanz (talk · contribs), whose terms in office were extended so that an orderly transfer of responsibility could occur. Dominic will return to his previous role as a CheckUser and Oversighter; MBisanz will assume his role as an Oversighter. The Committee also thanks former subcommittee member Tznkai (talk · contribs), who was one of the original appointees to the Committee in 2009, and resigned in August 2010.

Support: David Fuchs, Elen of the Roads, PhilKnight, Jclemens, John Vandenberg, Mailer diablo, Newyorkbrad, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Roger Davies, Shell Kinney, Xeno
Oppose: None
Abstain: None
Not voting: Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, Iridescent
Inactive: Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, Sir Fozzie

For the Arbitration Committee, –xenotalk 16:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

2011 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Call for applications[edit]

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams. Experienced editors are invited to apply for either or both of the permissions, and current holders of either permission are also invited to apply for the other.

Successful candidates are likely to be regularly available and already familiar with local and global processes, policies, and guidelines especially those concerning CheckUser and Oversight. CheckUser candidates are expected to be technically proficient, and previous experience with OTRS is beneficial for Oversight candidates. Trusted users who frequent IRC are also encouraged to apply for either permission. All candidates must at least 18 years of age; have attained legal majority in their jurisdiction of residence; and be willing to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation prior to receiving permissions.

Current demand for users with regional knowledge
Because of the increasing activity from the South Asian, Southeast Asian, or Middle Eastern regions, CheckUser applications are particularly sought from people who not only meet our general requirements but also are familiar with the ISPs and typical editing patterns of any of these regions.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the appointments page for further information. The application period is scheduled to close 18 September 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xenotalk 16:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

2011 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates[edit]

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-b@lists.wikimedia.org.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with all other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 10 October 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xenotalk 14:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

2011 CheckUser and Oversight appointments & personnel changes[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved to appoint five editors to the CheckUser team and three editors to the Oversight team pursuant to the CheckUser and Oversight appointment procedures and following the 2011 CUOS appointments process.

Subject to their providing identification satisfactory to the Wikimedia Foundation, the Arbitration Committee hereby resolves to:

(a) appoint the following editors as checkusers:

(b) appoint the following editors as oversighters:

† Previously identified member of the Audit Subcommittee who will retain the specified permission(s) upon the conclusion of their terms.

The committee thanks the other candidates (28bytes, HelloAnnyong, Kww, and Mentifisto); those who applied but were not put forward as candidates; and the community in bringing this appointment process to a successful conclusion.

The committee also recognizes the departures of Dominic and Nishkid64 from their dual roles on the CheckUser and Oversight teams; along with EVula, Howcheng, & Mr.Z-man from the Oversight team; and thanks these editors for their diligent service as functionaries and their extensive contributions elsewhere on the project.

At the request of arbitrator Iridescent, checkuser and oversight permissions will be removed from their account until such time as Iridescent is able to return to active participation.

Supporting motion: Casliber; Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry; Coren; David Fuchs; Jclemens; John Vandenberg; Kirill Lokshin; Mailer diablo; PhilKnight; Newyorkbrad; Roger Davies; Risker; SirFozzie; Xeno
Not voting/inactive: Cool Hand Luke; Elen of the Roads; Iridescent

For the Arbitration Committee, –xenotalk 13:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Nominations now open for the 2011 Arbitration Committee Elections[edit]

Nominations are now open for candidates to run in the 2011 Arbitration Committee Elections.

The role of Arbitrator is important and demanding, there is a perennial need for new volunteers to step forward. This year, 7 arbitrators are expected to be chosen. Nominations are open to any editor in good standing over the age of 18, who is of legal age in their place of residence, and who has made at least 150 mainspace edits before November 1, 2011; candidates are not required to be administrators or to have any other special permissions, but will be required to make certain commitments and disclosures as detailed in the nomination instructions. Experienced and committed editors are urged to Consider standing.

Nominations will be accepted from today, November 12 through Monday, November 21 at 23:59 (UTC), with voting scheduled to begin on Sunday, November 27. To submit your candidacy, proceed to the candidates page and follow the instructions given. Good luck to all the candidates who decide to stand for election, Monty845 00:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Call for applications (2012)[edit]

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee.

The Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC") was established by the Arbitration Committee to investigate complaints concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia, and to provide better monitoring and oversight of the CheckUser and Oversight positions, and use of the applicable tools.

Matters brought before the subcommittee may be time-sensitive and subcommittee members should be prepared and available to discuss cases promptly so they may be resolved in a timely manner. Sitting subcommittee members are expected to actively participate in AUSC proceedings and may be replaced should they become inactive. All subcommittee members are subject to the relevant local and global policies and guidelines concerning CheckUser and Oversight.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the appointments page for further information. The application period is scheduled to close 31 January 2012.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xenotalk 18:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Audit Subcommittee appointments (2012): Invitation to comment on candidates[edit]

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-b@lists.wikimedia.org.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with any other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 29 February 2012.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xenotalk 04:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

2012 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Call for applications[edit]

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams. Experienced editors are invited to apply for either or both of the permissions, and current holders of either permission are also invited to apply for the other. There is a particular need for Oversight candidates in this round of appointments.

Successful candidates are likely to be regularly available and already familiar with local and global processes, policies, and guidelines especially those concerning CheckUser and Oversight. CheckUser candidates are expected to be technically proficient, and previous experience with OTRS is beneficial for Oversight candidates. Trusted users who frequent IRC are also encouraged to apply for either permission. All candidates must at least 18 years of age; have attained legal majority in their jurisdiction of residence; and be willing to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation prior to receiving permissions.

Current demand for users with regional knowledge
Because of the increasing activity from the South Asian, Southeast Asian, or Middle Eastern regions, CheckUser applications are particularly sought from people who not only meet our general requirements but also are familiar with the ISPs and typical editing patterns of any of these regions.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the appointments page for further information. The application period is scheduled to close 15 June 2012.

For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 02:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

discussion pertaining to functionaries email list[edit]

at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Time to do away with "no spam email" gimmick?. Please come and telll me how wrong I am. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Reduced availability of Arbitrators and Functionaries due to Hurricane Sandy[edit]

Just a quick note that a number of Arbitrators and Functionaries are either not available at all, or have limited availablity due to the impact of Hurricane Sandy; please bear with us. Of course, if you have any urgent matters please use the usual channels, but don't be afraid to ping one of us by e-mail or on IRC as needed.

James F. (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

2013 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates[edit]

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with all other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 24 August 2013.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 05:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this announcement

Motion proposed regarding activity levels for holders of both CU and OS tools[edit]

A motion has been proposed regarding activity levels for holders of both CU and OS tools. If you wish to comment, please join the discussion at the motion on the motions page. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee review of procedures (CU & OS)[edit]

By resolution of the committee, our rules and internal procedures are currently being reviewed with the community. You are very welcome to participate at WT:AC/PRR. Information on the review is at WP:AC/PRR. The current phase of the review is examining the committee's procedures concerning advanced permissions (and the appointment and regulation of permissions holders). AGK [•] 11:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Participate in this review

AUSC appointments: nominate now[edit]

The 2014 appointments to AUSC are now open. The AUSC is an ArbCom body that inspects and regulates the use of CheckUser and Oversight.

All administrators are eligible to volunteer this year. To volunteer, read WP:AUSC to understand the role; the appointments page to understand the process; then email the committee with a nomination statement. You will be presented for community comments and a Q&A in August.

Questions are very welcome on any arbitrator's talk page, or by email.

For the Arbitration Committee,
WormTT(talk) 14:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee vacancies: last call for applications[edit]

This is a reminder that the application period for the three non-arbitrator seats on the Audit Subcommittee will close at 23:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC).

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC"). The Committee is comprised of six members and is tasked with investigations concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia. The AUSC also monitors CheckUser and Oversight activity and use of the applicable tools. The current non-arbitrator members are Guerillero, MBisanz, and Richwales, whose terms were to expire on June 30 2014 but were extended until August 27 2014 by the Committee.

Matters brought before the subcommittee may be time-sensitive and subcommittee members should be prepared and available to discuss cases promptly so they may be resolved in a timely manner. Sitting subcommittee members are expected to actively participate in AUSC proceedings and may be replaced should they become inactive. All subcommittee members are given both CheckUser and Oversight access. They are subject to the relevant local and global policies and guidelines concerning CheckUser and Oversight.

Please note that due to Wikimedia Foundation rules governing access to deleted material, only applications from administrators will be accepted.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please email arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org with your nomination statement to start the application procedure for an appointment ending 31 August 2015. The application period will close at 23:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC). Further information is also available here.

For the Arbitration Committee, WormTT(talk) 10:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Audit Subcommittee appointments (2014): Invitation to comment on candidates[edit]

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with any other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 27 August 2014.

For the Arbitration Committee,
WormTT(talk) 08:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)