Revision as of 09:55, 30 November 2013

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Motions

Shortcuts WP:ARM WP:ARBM This page can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Motions. Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives. Make a motion (Arbitrators only) You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment.

Motion regarding activity levels for holders of both CU and OS tools

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

The current section in the 'CheckUser/Oversight permissions and inactivity' section of the Arbitration Committee's Procedures document (adopted 30 March 2011, amended 11 March 2013) is modified as follows in relation to those who hold both CheckUser and Oversight permissions:

Either text A or text B, whichever gains the greater support, to be inserted before the section beginning 'Holders who do not comply with the activity and expectation requirements'.

• (A) Holders of both CheckUser and Oversight permissions are expected to maintain the required activity levels on both tools. If the activity levels on any tool fall below the required level, the holder may have that permission removed by the Arbitration Committee.

Support

Oppose

Abstain

• (B) Holders of both CheckUser and Oversight permissions are expected to maintain the required activity levels on at least one of the tools. If the activity levels on both tools fall below the required level, the holder may have those permissions removed by the Arbitration Committee.

Support

Oppose

Abstain

Discussion by arbitrators

This motion is proposed to clarify a potential ambiguity in the current wording regarding activity levels for holders of the CU and OS tools. For holders of both tools, some arbitrators are reluctant to remove one set of tools if someone is only maintaining activity with the other set of tools. Conversely, some interpret the current wording to mean that tools should be removed for inactivity regardless of whether someone is actively using the other set of tools. Since this does not require private discussion, I have proposed this motion here and will ask for input from the functionary team (i.e. those who use the tools), the rest of arbitration committee (i.e. those tasked with enforcing these activity requirements) and the wider community. I have no strong views either way, and I've not voted yet, as I first want to see what the consensus view is from the functionary team and others and have created discussion sections below. Discussion should be held open for at least a week to ensure everyone who needs to has seen this proposal and has had a chance to comment. Carcharoth (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Snowolf, one of the impediments in moving forward on the "inactive" issues is that those who were inactive generally held both tools and were only inactive for one. Historically, there has been a split in the committee in deciding whether meeting one activity requirement was sufficient if the user held both tools. Some argue that the key component is user trust, and if they're still trusted to hold one tool, then there should be no issue. Others argue that the activity levels are so minimal that anyone not meeting them has demonstrated that they no longer have an interest in using the tool. Getting this position straightened out and formalized, one way or another, is the purpose of this motion, so that these questions won't keep coming up. Fluffernutter's point about the difference between "may remove" and "will remove" is also noted. There are occasions when even functionaries take a "leave of absence"; provided Arbcom has been informed of the reason and the anticipated time of return, this is an exception to the rote removal of permissions. Risker (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments by functionaries

• It makes sense to me to handle each tool separately. It's entirely possible to be, say, a very active oversighter who never uses your CU permissions and hasn't kept up with CU/SPI policy, and find yourself in trouble when you suddenly try to use your CU tools. That said, however, in my perfect world Arbcom would sort out the issue of when "may be removed" is "will be removed" before they bother with "tool" vs "tools" - without some sort of idea for when the line will be drawn and when not, any policy about who lines apply to is rather useless as guidance. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
• Futile endeavor, the arbitration committee has shown in the past that it has absolutely zero will or interest in forcing functionaries to be inactive. The committee itself, even when spoonfed the data and research, refused to act for months, and when it did so, it failed to act properly. If there was any will to do the job, it would have been done already, if there isn't, it will not be done no matter what you write. Snowolf 04:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

General discussion

Why are functionaries separate from "others"? It looks faintly Orwellian, regardless of whatever the original intent was. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Mainly because I want to be able to review the responses separately when weighing up how to vote, as opposed to trawling through a long set of comments and trying to remember who are functionaries and who are not. What I'm looking for from those who use the OS and CU tools is direct impressions from their experience of using the tools. I've changed this section header from 'Discussion by others' to 'General discussion' so everyone can discuss down here as needed. Carcharoth (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

It's reasonable to have them as a separate section, because these motions directly affect them. If Arbcom makes a motion that affects a specific individual or group, it makes sense to have a section that is roughly the equivalent of "discussion by parties" as seen on case workshop pages. Risker (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a point in this at all. As long as a functionary is otherwise active, why even remove the tools? Why limit the pool of people able to respond when there's a need for a response? It's not like the knowledge is going to go stale; changes to the CU and OS policies are both incredibly rare and rather difficult to miss. A functionary will lose access to CU and OS if they are desysoped for inactivity, which makes sense as a user can't be up to date if they're simply not around at all, buy why the fuss to strip CU and OS from active users? Sven Manguard Wha? 07:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Why would they lose access to CU & OS if they lose adminship for whatever reason? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• If I'm correctly understanding the question that is being asked here, I think the best policy would be to consider each function (oversight and checkuser) separately for the purpose of determining who should maintain these rights; that is, if an editor has both rights, but frequently uses one while not using the other, then the second right should be removed. So these two rights should not be considered to be "bundled" together for the purpose of removal for disuse.

  The reasoning behind my opinion is based not on changes in policy -- which, as noted above, change quite slowly -- but on the normal practical conventions utilized in utilizing each right. Wikipolicy is, generally speaking, fairly loosely defined, deliberately so, in order that it can both lead and follow practice. Nevertheless, there are conventions of practice, and functionaries who attempt to make decisions in a realm they're not intimately familiar with, because of their limited use of the right, may be prone to make decisions based on their prior understandings of practice, as opposed to what is currently accepted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• My reading of the issue is that an oversighter might come across edits that require checkuser and the other way around. So while focusing on just one of the tools they are able to fullfill their role better with the occational access to the other. So as long as they are trusted the overall activity should be relevant not that of the individual tool. Changes in policy will be communicated on the respective mailing lists and part of being trusted is the trust in the ability to keep up with things. -- Agathoclea (talk) 08:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Motion granting temporary local CheckUser permission to Arbitration Committee Election Scrutineers

For the purpose of scrutineering the 2013 Arbitration Committee elections, stewards User:Mathonius, User:Vituzzu, User:Matanya, and User:Tegel, appointed as scrutineers, are granted temporary local CheckUser permissions effective from the time of the passage of this motion until the certification of the election results.

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 2 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

1. T. Canens (talk) 03:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Risker (talk) 03:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Carcharoth (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
5. Courcelles 05:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
6. Worm(talk) 07:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Recuse

1. Roger Davies
2. AGK

Discussion by arbitrators

• This is a standard motion made routinely on an annual basis, with sitting arbitrators who are current candidates presumed to be recused. Risker (talk) 03:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)