Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions: Difference between revisions

|updated = an automatic check at {{#time:H:i, j F Y|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}}} (UTC)

|motions =

<!--{{ARCAImplNotes/Motion/Automatic|page=ARM|pattern=%c#.-UTC|name = Motion 1.1: expand eligible set to functionaries |active = 10 }} -->

{{ARCAImplNotes/Motion/Automatic|page=ARM|pattern=%c#.-UTC|name = Motion 1.2a: name the role "scrivener" |active = 10 <!--|support = |oppose = |abstain = -->}}

{{ARCAImplNotes/Motion/Automatic|page=ARM|pattern=%c#.-UTC|name = Motion 1.2b: name the role "coordination assistant" |active = 10 <!--|support = |oppose = |abstain = -->}}

{{ARCAImplNotes/Motion/Automatic|page=ARM|pattern=%c#.-UTC|name = Motion 1.3: make permanent (not trial) |active = 10 <!--|support = |oppose = |abstain = -->}}

{{ARCAImplNotes/Motion/Automatic|page=ARM|pattern=%c#.-UTC|name = Motion 2: WMF staff support |active = 10 <!--|support = |oppose = |abstain = -->}}

{{ARCAImplNotes/Motion/Automatic|page=ARM|pattern=%c#.-UTC|name = Motion 3: Coordinating arbitrators |active = 10 <!--|support = |oppose = |abstain = -->}}

;Support

# This is my first choice and falls within ArbCom's community-granted authority to {{tqq|1=approve and remove access to [...] mailing lists maintained by the Arbitration Committee}}<ref>{{slink|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Scope_and_responsibilities}}</ref> and to {{tqq|1=designate individuals for particular tasks or roles}} and {{tqq|1=maintain a panel of clerks to assist with the smooth running of its functions}}.<ref>{{slink|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Procedures_and_roles}}</ref> {{pb}} Currently, we have [[WP:AC/C|arbitration clerks]] to help with on-wiki work, but most of ArbCom's workload is private (on ''arbcom-en''), and our clerks have no ability to help with that because they can't access any of ArbCom's non-public work. It has always seemed strange to me to have clerks for on-wiki work, but not for the bulk of the work which is off-wiki (and which has always needed more coordination help). {{pb}} When consulting the functionaries, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that four functionaries (including three former arbitrators) expressed interest in volunteering for this role. This would be lower-intensity than serving as an arbitrator, but still essential to the functioning of the committee. We already have a number of ex-arbs on the clerks-l mailing list to advise and assist, and this seems like a natural extension of that function. The Stewards have a [[m:Steward clerks|somewhat similar "Steward clerk" role]], although ArbCom correspondence clerks would be a higher-trust position (functionary-level appointments only). {{pb}} I see this as the strongest option because the structure is familiar (analogous to our existing clerks, but for off-wiki business), because we have trusted functionaries and former arbs interested who could well discharge these responsibilities, and because I think we would benefit from separating the administrative responsibility from the substantive responsibility. The cons I see are that volunteer correspondence clerks might be less reliable than paid staff and that we'd be adding one or two (ish) people to the arbcom-en list. Best, '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 18:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

 

;Oppose

 

;Abstain

{{ACMajority|active=10|motion=yes}}

;Support

 

;Oppose

 

;Abstain

 

;Oppose

 

;Abstain

# I am indifferent between this and "correspondence clerk". Best, '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 03:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

 

;Arbitrator discussion

 

;Oppose

 

;Abstain

 

And replace it with the following:

}}

 

{{ACMajority|active=10|motion=yes}}

;Support

 

;Oppose

 

;Abstain

 

;Arbitrator discussion

# I appreciate that Kevin put this together, and I think this would be very helpful, maybe even the most helpful, way to ensure that we stayed on top of the ball. But just because it would achieve one goal doesn't make it a good idea. A full version of my rationale is on the ArbList, for other Arbs. The short, [[WP:BEANS]] version is that this would destroy the line between us and the Foundation, which undoes much of our utility. [[User:CaptainEek|<b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b>]] ^{[[User talk:CaptainEek|<i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>]]}[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 01:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

# Per my comment on motion 4. - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 01:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

 

;Abstain

# This is currently my first-choice option; we have unofficially in the past had arbitrators take on specific roles (e.g. tracking unblock requests, responding to emails, etc) and it seemed to work fairly well. Having those rules be more "official" seems like the best way to make sure ''someone'' is responsible for these things, without needing to expand the committee or the pool of people with access to private information. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 18:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

#I may still vote for the clerks option, but I think this is probably the minimum of what we need. Will it be suffucient...aye, there's the rub. [[User:CaptainEek|<b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b>]] ^{[[User talk:CaptainEek|<i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>]]}[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 01:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

 

;Oppose

:::I think it's entirely possible for the new committee to have a sense of what it wants workload wise by February-April and so it's wrong to just rule out the first half of the year. By the end of the first six months of the year that you and I started (and which JSS was a sitting member on) we'd made a number of changes to how things were done. Off the top of my head I can name the structure of cases and doing quarterly reports of private appeals as two but there were others. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 01:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

::::Here's what I'll leave you with overall. What you may see as a downside{{snd}}these proposals being voted on relatively late in the year{{snd}}I see as a significant possible upside. Members of this committee are able to draw on at least eleven months' experience as arbitrators in deciding what is working well and what might warrant change{{snd}}experience which is important in determining what kinds of processes and systems lead to effective and ineffective outcomes. That experience is important: Although I have served on ArbCom for four years and before that served as an ArbCom clerk for almost six years, I still learn more every year about what makes this committee click. {{pb}} If what really concerns you is locking in the new committee to a particular path, as I wrote [[#c-L235-20241201233900-L235-20241201182800|above]], I'm very open to structuring this as a trial run that will end of its own accord unless the committee takes action to make it permanent. This would ensure that the new committee retains full control over whether to continue, discontinue, or adapt these changes. But in my book, it does not make sense to wait. Best, '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 22:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

----

Just to double check that I'm reading motion 1 correctly, it ''would'' still be possible to email the original list (for arbitrators only) if, for example, you were raising a concern about something the correspondence clerks should not be privy to (ie: misuse of tools by a functionary), correct? Granted, I think motion 3 is probably the simpler option here, but in the event motion 1 passes, is the understanding I wrote out accurate? [[User:EggRoll97|EggRoll97]] ^{([[User_talk:EggRoll97|talk]])} 02:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

:::Well, I clearly totally misread your intent there. I.... don't think I like the idea that unelected clerks can see everything the committee is doing. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|^{from this world ..... today}]] 03:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

:FWIW, I oppose splitting arbcom-en a second time -- [[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] ^{[[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]]} 10:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

 

----

:Or "cat-herder". --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 00:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

:Following parliamentary tradition, perhaps "whip". (Less whimsically: "recording secretary".) [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 00:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

 

----

::I think I agree with Izno regarding the coordinating arbitrator role. There's no problem letting the community that the role exists, but I don't think it's necessary for the role's responsibilities to be part of the public-facing guarantees being made to the community. If the role needs to expand, shrink, split into multiple roles, or otherwise change, the committee should feel free to just do it as needed. The committee has the flexibility to organize itself as it best sees fit. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 23:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

:::I think this is the right approach. It doesn't need to be advertised who is coordinating activity on the mailing list, it just needs to get done. If it takes two people, fine, if they do it for six months and say they want out of the role, ask somebody else to do it. And so on. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|^{from this world ..... today}]] 23:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

::One exception: the first bullet point regarding responding to communications and assigning a tracking identifier does involve the committee's interactions with the community. I feel, though, that for flexibility these guarantees can be made without codifying who does them, from the community's point of view. (It's fine of course to make them part of the coordinating arbitrator's tasks.) [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 23:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)