| Revision as of 02:57, 30 November 2013 view sourceCarcharoth (talk | contribs)Administrators73,560 edits →Discussion by others: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:58, 30 November 2013 view source Carcharoth (talk | contribs)Administrators73,560 edits →Discussion by functionaries: tweak headerNext edit → | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
| 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. ] (]) 01:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC) | 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. ] (]) 01:24, 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. ] (]) 02:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC) | *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. ] (]) 02:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 02:58, 30 November 2013
Arbitration Committee proceedings
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
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 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, 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.
| 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'.
- (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)
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)
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)