Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions

< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MJL (talk | contribs) at 19:03, 26 April 2022 (→St Christopher: also enact). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
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
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Motion name Date posted
Clerk terms 26 April 2022
St Christopher 26 April 2022

Motions

Clerk terms

Enacted –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee procedures is amended to add a new section "Clerks" (level 2) and a subsection entitled "Terms" with the following text:

Trainee clerks will have a term of up to 1 year after their appointment as a trainee to be promoted to full clerk. This term may be extended by the Committee.

Full clerks will be asked to confirm their desire to stay a clerk every 2 years, from the date they were appointed as a full clerk. There are no term limits for full clerks.

Arbitrators views and discussion

Support
  1. This is really doing two separate, but related, things around the theme of having an accurate portrayal of clerk capacity. The idea behind trainees having a time limit is to provide a gentle push for the trainee, and the clerks training them, towards doing what they need to be promoted. It doesn't strike me as a good idea to have perpetual trainees. The idea behind the clerk term limits idea here is to have a clerk team that remains active and interested in clerking. This provides a natural point at which to say "thanks for your service" if the clerk's interest has faded or wandered in different directions (we are a volunteer project after all). Barkeep49 (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that I changed the trainee term to 1 year from the 2 that I'd originally suggested. Given that the committee can extend it, this feels like a reasonable length to provide the push and a year presents enough time, even with our diminished case load, for a trainee to get the experience necessary to become a full clerk. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I fully support this, but I'd also like to publicly state that this is not intended to suggest dissatisfaction with any particular clerk or clerks. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Since the Arbs serve terms, I think it also reasonable that the clerks serve terms. I'll echo Beeble that this isn't us being unhappy at the clerks, but rather a reform that I felt we'd rather have in place before an actual issue arose. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. As noted by others above, this is about having better definition for roles rather than any reflection on serving clerks. - Donald Albury 19:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Also as above, not about any specific clerk, more about good bookkeeping. I'm not completely sure the whole "trainee" concept is all that useful in a volunteer environment where everybody can self-select into anything - after all, for most other roles we don't really have formal "training", and certainly not a year of it! But I think it makes sense to have terms and keep tabs on activity/interest. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I am fine with this. --Izno (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. WormTT(talk) 08:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Maxim(talk) 12:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. BDD (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. — Wug·a·po·des​ 17:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Primefac (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Cabayi (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Arbitrator discussion

Community discussion

St Christopher

Enacted –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case ("Single-purpose accounts restrained") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with this remedy remain in force.

Arbitrator views and discussion

Support
  1. Izno (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Clearly no longer needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Donald Albury 18:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Enterprisey (talk!) 19:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cabayi (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. BDD (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Arbitrator discussion
  • I found a talk page notice for this while wikignoming. No actions have been logged in over a decade, and I have a feeling that current policy and policy enforcement around promotional editing and single-purpose accounts also make this remedy essentially obsolete. --Izno (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussion

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&oldid=1084812241"