Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m →Community discussion: edit reply to Just Step Sideways |
m →Community discussion: edit reply to Just Step Sideways |
||
Line 213:
:::This suggested rationale doesn't hold water: someone with an issue with a c-clerk or where they may need to recuse should just follow the normal process for an issue with an arb: to whit, kicking off arbcom-b for a private discussion. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 01:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::Making arbcom-en a "firewall" from the arb deliberations would inhibit the c-clerk from performing the duties listed in the motion. I cannot see how it would be workable for them to remind arbs to do the thing the electorate voluntold them to do if the c-clerk cannot see whether they have done those things (e.g. coming to a conclusion on an appeal), and would add to the overhead of introducing this secretarial position (email comes in, c-clerk forwards to -internal, arbs discussion on -internal, come to conclusion, send an email ''back'' to -en, which the c-clerk then actions back to the user on arbcom-en). This suggested rationale also does not hold water to me. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 01:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::Apologies{{snd}}if this was the interpretation, that's bad drafting on my part. The sole intention is that the new correspondence clerks won't see the ''past'' arbcom-en archives, which were emails sent to the committee on the understanding that only arbitrators would see those emails. C clerks will see everything that's newly sent on arbcom-en, including all deliberations held on arbcom-en, with the exception of anything that is so sensitive that the committee feels the need to restrict discussion to arbitrators (this should be fairly uncommon but covers the recusal concern above). The C clerks will need to be able to see deliberations to be able to track pending matters and ensure that balls aren't being dropped, which could not happen unless they had access to the discussions{{snd}}this is a reasonable "need to know" because they are fulfilling a function that is hard to combine with serving as an active arbitrator. Best, '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 01:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Appointing one of the sitting arbitrators as "Coordinating Arbitrator" (motion 3) would be my recommended first choice of solution. We had a Coordinating Arbitrator—a carefully chosen title, as opposed to something like "Chair"—for a few years some time ago. It worked well, although it was no panacea, and I frankly don't recollect why the coordinator role was dropped at some point. If there is a concern about over-reliance or over-burden on any one person, the role could rote periodically (although I would suggest a six-month term to avoid too much time being spent on the mechanics of selecting someone and transitioning from one coordinator to the next). At any given time there should be at least one person on a 15-member Committee with the time and the skill-set to do the necessary record-keeping and nudging in addition to arbitrating, and this solution would avoid the complications associated with bringing another person onto the mailing list. I think there would be little community appetite for involving a WMF staff member (even one who is or was also an active Wikipedian) in the Committee's business; and if we are going to set the precedent of paying someone to handle tasks formerly handled by volunteers, with all due respect to the importance of ArbCom this is not where I would start. Regards, [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 01:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
| |||