Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Motions: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:32, 30 November 2013 view sourceRschen7754 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users123,234 edits Motion regarding activity levels for holders of both CU and OS tools: add← Previous edit Revision as of 01:38, 30 November 2013 view source Callanecc (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators72,962 edits Motion regarding activity levels for holders of both CU and OS tools: Adding {[tl|ACMajority}}Next edit →
Line 6: Line 6:


== Motion regarding activity levels for holders of both CU and OS tools == == Motion regarding activity levels for holders of both CU and OS tools ==
:''{{ACMajority|active=12|motion=yes}}''

The current section in the 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: The current section in the 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:



Revision as of 01:38, 30 November 2013

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Motion regarding activity levels for holders of both CU and OS tools 11 March 2013

Motions

Shortcuts

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.
Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0 7
1–2 6
3–4 5

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'.

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

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0 7
1–2 6
3–4 5

  • (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 falls 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 falls 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)

Discussion by functionaries

Discussion by others