Template:CharterVote2/9/Discussion

< RETURN TO THE MAIN PAGE

• WithdrawalRemoval of Editor status shall require a formal decision by the Editorial Council and shall enjoy the full rights of appeal.

I'm saying to revise it to what Joe thought:

• Removal of Editor status shall require a formal decision by the Editorial Council and may be appealed.

D. Matt Innis 19:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Agree Russell D. Jones 21:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Add, after "status", " after the list of Editors is reviewed and accepted by the first EC, " Howard C. Berkowitz 22:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

" after the list of Editors is reviewed and accepted by the first EC, " appears unnecessary as obviously that would be a formal process and they should still be allowed an appeal. D. Matt Innis

I am willing to formalize the "inactive editor" rule and allow only active editors to be "grandfathered". The EC, however, must be able to clean out the list of inactive editors and never let it become largely inactive people. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Howard, could you please write out your proposed text? Thanks. Russell D. Jones 23:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

On ratification of the Charter, the Editorial Council shall remove from the list of Editors those who have not participated (e.g., made edits or been consulted) in the previous 90 (120?) days. Such removed Editors may reapply for editor status, without prejudice. Subsequent removals for other than inactivity shall require a formal decision and right of appeal."

I'm open to language that could cover specialist editors, although I'd prefer for them to show activity simply so we know they are familiar with the environment. "Made an edit" includes "created content." Howard C. Berkowitz 23:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like something for the interim guidance section. D. Matt Innis 23:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I accept that, as long as this section clearly lets the Interim Guidance section do it. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be in favor of something like this for the interim Guidance Section. But, please do not forget to vote on Matt's proposal above. Russell D. Jones 23:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to say "Removal of active Editor status shall require a formal decision by the Editorial Council and may be appealed."? I recognize we don't formally define active, but I'm not sure we need to do it here.

I don't like the idea of ever removing editor status. Once an ecpert, always an expert. It may be three years before I want to contact Nancy to help me approve an article. I'd hate to tell her that she has to re-apply to get her status back. Her name should remain on the editor list so that others can contact her.. that may get her to come back and get active. So, yes, I would rather see "active" vs "inactive" being used if we have to go there. But, I think it should be up to the EC. If we do anything here, it should be to make sure that editors are protected from removal of status for no good reason. That is my two cents and all I say on that. D. Matt Innis 00:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

"Active" and "inactive" lists are a good idea, but removing Editor status entirely for inactivity is not. I agree with Matt's proposal, i.e. "Removal of Editor status shall require a formal decision by the Editorial Council and may be appealed." -Joe Quick 00:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it should be both.

• Any change in Editor status shall require a formal decision by the Editorial Council and may be appealed.

D. Matt Innis 00:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

That's good. Minor change:

• • Any change in Editor status shall require a formal decision by the Editorial Council or its designee and may be appealed.

That allows for the Editorial Personnel Administrators to continue to do their jobs. -Joe Quick 01:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Nancy indeed would be a very different case than people who were made Editors on their first day, and then never made any contributions. Indeed, going through archives, there were active Editors who left over various policy frustrations, very much in sorrow on their parts. Perhaps community government might bring some back.

Other than in special cases, such as there being no Editors in the discipline or a specialized matter, I'm very hesitant to have Editor status assigned immediately. One might be incredibly knowledgeable in the discipline, but still unfamiliar with CZ. There is good reason, I believe, to take the opportunity to clean up the list of Editors, especially when Editors are now eligible for ME.

I suppose that if any inactive editor is interested enough to appeal, that shows something -- I've rarely gotten an email response from an Editor that never contributed at all. I'll accept Joe's amended text, but urge there be a review in interim guidance -- not simple inactivity, but, as a start, no activity. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I, too, would like to see the list of Editors cleaned up. Not least because I have doubts about the qualifications of some. But it does belong in Interim Guidance if it is to be part of the charter at all. -Joe Quick 04:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about or its designee. That sounds like the designee has the power to make the decision to remove editor status or activity status. In reality, I'd prefer that the EC debate the criteria that defines the list of editors and the designee follows through with cleaning up the list according to those criteria. Then the editor can appeal whether they fit the list, not the bias of the designee. I will entertain other attempts to clarify, though. D. Matt Innis 12:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

If we understand "decision" to include setting the standards by which certain designees are gven the authority to follow through on behalf of the council, then I'm okay with leaving out "or its designee". -Joe Quick 14:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this is covered by the EC's delegation of powers clause. Russell D. Jones 16:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Joe above. Yes, Matt, I believe the EC needs to debate the qualifications, because we've both not accepted people that I consider demonstrably well-qualified, but accepted people that are questionably so, and sometimes just had mysterious selection or denial to people that seemed a strong fit or mismatch to the official criteria. Those criteria, I'm afraid, have been weighted toward academia, and perhaps even more to academia in the humanities. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

But, qualifications for editor status is a covered in a different article. This article deals only with removal of editor status. Russell D. Jones 16:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

<undent>I'm not sure exactly what is trying to be solved by this article. I can think of the following cases:

1. EC changes qualifications for editors; some citizens no longer qualify. what happens?
2. EC makes individual rulings on editor's status; citizen disagrees.
3. EC makes blanket rulings on editor status (e.g., activity); some citizens lose status. What happens?

Russell D. Jones 16:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think of it as protecting an editor's rights. D. Matt Innis 21:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Can the designee be a script like this one? --Daniel Mietchen 21:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be. There is less chance of accusations of discrimination with a bot that has been designed with the permission of the EC and uses specific criteria than anyone visually skimming a list and making individual choices. D. Matt Innis 00:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

But that script was designed and run at the order of the EC. So the change in editor status that resulted from the use of the script was by formal decision of the EC, not its script or bot. Bots do not have rights; Thirteenth Amendment and Isaac Asimov not withstanding. Russell D. Jones 01:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

by formal decision of the EC, Exactly my point. Once an editor has received editorship, I don't want some random Editorial staff making a decision to remove it (or change it).

Any change in a citizen's Editor status shall require a formal decision by the Editorial Council and may be appealed. Removal of editor status may also be applied as judicial sanction in a dispute resolution process.

• hmmmm. here's a new angle. Russell D. Jones 01:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that three random people should be able to decide to remove someones editor status? D. Matt Innis 01:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

An Appeals Board is hardly random, as it is invoked only when other mechanisms have failed. Now, I agree that removal of Editor status should not be as a punishment for individual actions -- but what if the matter brought to appeal is a pattern of Editor behavior? If the appeal is from an EC revocation of Editor status, the Board must have the right to let that decision stand.

We do have, incidentally, a few examples where someone has been permanently blocked but, as far as I know, never had Editor status removed. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think editor status should only be removed by the editorial council. If the editor appeals, then three hand picked people get to decide based on new information or a flaw. D. Matt Innis 02:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Matt, are you saying, then, that an EC decision to remove Editor status is not reviewable on grounds of fairness, only procedure? I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but clarifying. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't know the definition of fairness, but currently we've got 2 reasons for appeal; new information and technical flaw. See articles 36, 37, 38 ,39.

(unindent) Sorry, I am not sure which phrasing(s) we are actually voting on right now and who wrote the unsigned lines, so I'll just state that I'm fine with Matt's "Any change in Editor status shall require a formal decision by the Editorial Council and may be appealed." --Daniel Mietchen 20:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Does this mean that the EC can pass resolution 321: "Jones is a git and his editor status is hereby revoked." Or should such singling out of individuals be dis-allowed. Is this article intended to be only broad-based: "Academic degrees from Git University shall no longer be considered a demonstration of expertise; all editors who have been granted editor status as a result of their degree from Git U, that status is hereby revoked." Individual editors could then appeal the revocation on the basis that "I also have a degree from Worthless U!" I don't think the article is clear enough. And as point of clarification, I'm working on the assumption that the current version of the article is always the one at the bottom of the page, but you can vote for any version you please. This does compromise the chronological flow of a talk page, but it keeps all the votes together with the wording being voted. Russell D. Jones 21:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Summary At various points in this discussion, five members (Innis, Jones, Berkowitz, Quick, and Mietchen) had agreed to this wording: "Any change in Editor status shall require a formal decision by the Editorial Council and may be appealed." While there is still discussion about what exactly this means, I'm greening this text. If you disagree, revert. Russell D. Jones 21:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I still agree to that. Joe Quick 04:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)