Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Proposed amendment ratification vote

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This vote should probably be considered defunct. See Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Proposed amendment revote, a work in progress to solve the fundamental issues in the approach taken for this vote.

What is this vote for?

[edit]

This vote is to ratify a set of proposed alterations to the Arbitration policy as guides the Arbitration Committee; they were originally proposed in August 2004.

In essence, the point of the amendment is to stream-line the way in which the Committee works, making it faster and more responsive, and to alter the policy to more accurately reflect both how and when it is used, which differs slightly from how this was envisaged when the policy was initially drafted.


How will the outcome of the vote be determined?

[edit]

The vote will close exactly one fortnight after it opens. If at that time, at least 100 votes have been cast, and the percentage of all votes for "yes" exceeds 70 per cent, then the outcome of the vote is "Yes." If it does not exceed 70 per cent, the outcome of the vote is "No."

As of 03:19 28 Nov 2004, there were 50 votes cast (43 yes and 7 no); this does not meet the 100 vote restriction on determining an outcome. As such, a proposal is on the board to extend the vote another fortnight (to 03:19 12 Dec 2004). Please comment on the talk page hereof and continue to cast your votes until it is determined when the vote will officially close with an outcome.

What will be the effects of this vote?

[edit]

Assuming either result is approved by Jimbo:

If the outcome of the vote is "Yes," then...
  • ...It is made clear that:
    • ...the Mediation Committee is not subordinate to the Arbitration Committee, and that there exist other parts of the dispute resolution process.
    • ...the Committee accepts any evidence that is shown to it, regardless of its source.
    • ...the Committee has no jurisdiction over the unofficial IRC channels, the mailing lists, or the Board acting in its official capacity.
  • ...The requirement for a prospective case otherwise rejected to be kept on Requests for Arbitration for a week is removed.
  • ...The manner in which cases are named is made explicit.
  • ...The policy is updated to reflect the use of a listing of non-active Arbitrators in calculating the quorum in each vote made.
  • ...A recommended manner in which further amendments to the Arbitration policy might be made is suggested.
If the outcome of the vote is "No," then...
  • ...The Arbitration Committee will continue to use the Arbitration policy as it now stands
  • ...Members of the Committee and the community as a whole will work towards reshaping the Arbitration policy into a form more acceptable to the community at large

Who may vote?

[edit]

If you have had an account since before October 31, 2004 and have made more than 500 edits with it, you may vote. Otherwise, you may not. These restrictions are intended to avoid ballot stuffing. If, for whatever reason, you maintain more than one account which meet these criteria, use only one of them to vote.


The vote (approx. 65 yes, 25 no)

[edit]
Should the Arbitration Committee adopt the proposed amendment to the Arbitration policy as it stands in the edit of 03:16, 14 Nov 2004 (its creation)?

Anyone can add or change their vote at any time.

Yes

[edit]
  1. I'm not sure if this gets at the heart of the problems here, but it's a start. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 03:19, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 03:21, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. What Grunt said. Neutralitytalk 03:23, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Yes. Mattworld 03:24, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 03:24, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. Gady 03:43, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 03:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  8. Whosyourjudas (talk) 04:09, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  9. What Grunt said. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  10. Johnleemk | Talk 15:12, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  11. sannse (talk) 17:11, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  12. Andre (talk) 19:27, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Michael Snow 20:49, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)Withdrawing my vote, not because I oppose the amendments, but because I disagree with allowing this vote as the basis for ratification when the predetermined quorum was not met. The 100-vote threshold was too high under the circumstances, yes, but the solution of starting over with a new vote is more appropriate.
  13. — Matt 16:58, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  14. Josiah 21:31, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  15. Decumanus 07:13, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)
  16. Slowking Man 07:30, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  17. JesseW 09:14, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) - seems perfectly fine to me.
  18. Viriditas 11:38, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  19. older≠wiser 16:16, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  20. I'm a little uneasy about the 2nd amendment to line 8, but I can't think of a better solution. Jwrosenzweig 16:35, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  21. —No-One Jones (m) 18:11, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  22. AlexR 20:19, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  23. silsor 20:54, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  24. Lst27 (talk) 01:18, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  25. Hephaestos|§ 04:39, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  26. Warofdreams 10:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  27. Cribcage 23:28, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  28. While IRC conversations being used as evidence kind of rubs me the wrong way, the rest of it seems like a good idea. [[User:Mo0|Mo0[talk]]] 00:45, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  29. Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:46, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Rje 01:27, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) Upon consideration I cannot support, and am switching my vote.
  30. Mackensen (talk) 02:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  31. Antandrus 03:55, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  32. Isomorphic 14:57, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) Support all except the IRC provisions in line 8. I am neutral on that ammendment because I am not on IRC and don't pretend to understand the issues involved.
    • Line 8 also allows for private e-mails to be used as evidence, which is unacceptable. Brianjd
  33. PedanticallySpeaking 18:58, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
  34. Tannin 08:00, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  35. SWAdair | Talk 09:35, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  36. Andris 06:29, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
  37. Goobergunch 02:56, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  38. llywrch 20:35, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC) However, like Jwrosenzweig, I am uneasy about the addition of Wikipedia-EN to the Arbitraiton committee's review; any problems there can be quickly handled by the list manager. -- llywrch 20:35, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  39. Eric119 05:06, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  40. Dbiv 00:30, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  41. - Amgine 03:18, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  42. Cyrius|✎ 03:21, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  43. Yelyos 02:05, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC) In response to the arguments brought up by those below regarding Snowspinner's amendment, I believe that although private emails and IRC should be allowed as evidence, they should be treated (if they are unverifiable evidence, and I don't believe IRC is truly unverifiable, given the number of people keeping logs) as unverifiable evidence and given a corresponding amount of weight when it comes to proceedings. I trust in the ArbCom to make reasonable judgements when it comes to unverifiable evidence.
    I'm not sure about IRC, but using private emails is unacceptable. See Wiktionary:Private.
  44. Lifefeed 02:13, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC) Concerning the snowpinner amendment, I have enough faith in the arbitrators to be able to figure out the difference between verifiable and unverifiable evidence. Maybe that faith is misplaced, but I'm still voting yes.
  45. GeneralPatton 01:10, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  46. Rhobite 01:18, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  47. Goplat 01:19, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  48. The ArbCom needs work; this is better than nothing! --ℛyan! | Talk 06:56, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  49. Jallan 15:39, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  50. Looks very necessary. In particular, it's good to clarify that the AC does not handle harassment via email. Pakaran (ark a pan) 16:24, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  51. Erich 17:27, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  52. Of course. And the Arbitrators are intelligent enough to realize which sorts of evidence may be fake. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 01:13, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  53. I realize the deadline has passed - but if 100 votes are needed to make this valid - add mine - it seems most of these provisions are being followed anyway Trödel|talk 18:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  54. Adding my vote so as to inch slightly closer to thw 100 needed. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 18:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  55. Add my (belated) vote William M. Connolley 23:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC).
  56. Is this vote too late to count? Samboy 09:11, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  57. Foobaz·o< 02:41, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  58. Mailer Diablo 03:05, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  59. Yes. Evanwohrman 03:13, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  60. Curps 04:27, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  61. /sɪzlæk˺/ 06:01, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  62. Shanes 08:41, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  63. Rednblu | Talk 09:40, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  64. Ryan! | Talk 22:04, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
  65. Luigi30 04:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  66. Adding belated vote. Inter\Echo 18:56, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No

[edit]
  1. IRC and private emails should be completely in or (preferably) completely out. I support the rest, but unfortunately we're not given a chance to vote on an ammendment by ammendment basis, only as a whole, so I oppose. Shane King 07:32, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
    I should point out that whether or not this amendment passes, the Committee is likely to continue to act in the way that it currently does - which includes the use of evidence either less verifiable than Wikipedia edits or out of normal jurisdiction(logs of IRC discussions, emails forwarded, and others) as supplementary evidence. This amendment merely notes that this is current practice. -- James F. (talk) 19:52, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    The arbitration committee is here to fulfil policy, not write it. They should not take IRC or e-mail evidence, and if we need to clarify that in this vote, so be it. [[User:Sam Spade|Vote Sam Spade for Arbiter!]] 20:41, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    I realise it's current practice, I just disagree with it. It doesn't make sense to me to declare IRC out of the Arb Comm's juristiction, and then allow evidence from it. It's the inconsistency that strikes me as wrong. I'd support making IRC within the Arb Comm's juristiction, even though I disagree with the idea, so long as it was done consistently. Shane King 23:35, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Additional amendment to Line 8 [added by Snowspinner] is unnacceptable. [[User:Sam Spade|Vote Sam Spade for Arbiter!]] 16:41, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    See my response to Shane King. -- James F. (talk) 19:52, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. The "Snowspinner" amendment is a recipe for disaster, since only the unscrupulous will likely make use of such "evidence". Without an external control, such as the history retention of the official mailing list archives or the Wiki itself, such evidence will always be inflammatory and wouldn't even pass the most basic rules of evidence. Snowspinner's desire to include that amendment is also very personally motivated. -- Netoholic @ 15:09, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)
  4. No, unverifiable evidence should not be used. Without that the amendment has my support. --fvw* 12:26, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
  5. No, the wikipedia uses IRC and the arbitration committee conducts 'official' business there. They should be held responsible for their actions there. Lirath Q. Pynnor
  6. I agree that IRC/e-mail evidence should not be admissible. Filiocht 15:45, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
  7. I'm with Shane King - I agree with the rest, but the additional ammendment to line 8 is unacceptable. Brianjd
    However, see the following, which I moved from "Other", having just become eligible to vote (500 contributions):
    The original "requests" section and the proposed change are both absurd. If we do not have four votes either way, then do the requests just "pile up"? Brianjd
  8. I will vote 'yes' when Snowspinner's amendment is removed. Nicholas 03:32, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  9. Ditto. If the "Showspinner Amendment" is removed, you can assume my vote is then a 'yes' even if I do not remember to change it. -- Ram-Man 18:05, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Oppose now. Support if "Snowspinner Amendment" is removed. ElBenevolente 01:19, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  11. I commented back in September. No one seemed to disagree with my comments, but they were ignored. anthony 警告 01:25, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  12. Oppose as an all-or-nothing set of amendments. Would support most changes if proposed individually. Oppose line 9 (official actions of "the Board" should be outside ArbComm jurisdiction, but individual actions of people who happen to be "members of the Board" should be inside ArbComm jurisdiction). Oppose Snowspinner amendment to line 8 as written, but might support a variant that made it clear that some evidence is given more weight than other evidence. —AlanBarrett 09:18, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  13. Oppose unless "Snowspinner Amendment" is removed - if removed, assume my vote is support. ugen64 00:04, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. I don't accept the IRC and private e-mail evidence. -Hapsiainen 23:13, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
  15. No, because of clause 8. The Arbitration Committee has been and should continue to be responsible to this community, not to the Wikimedia Foundation. Similarly, Wikimedia Foundation board members should be immune only when acting in their offical capacity, while the amendment makes them immune regardless of that and however unacceptable their conduct might be. Jamesday 22:57, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  16. Concur Jamesday. 119 23:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  17. Oppose, since it's all or nothing. Jimbo can do what he wants but board members acting as every-day editors shouldn't get special treatment. --jag123 03:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  18. mmmmmm bad ideasArm 03:08, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  19. Everyking 04:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  20. Opposed to IRC/private e-mail evidence stuff. utcursch | talk 08:18, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
  21. Concur with Jamesday. Members of the Board must still be individually accountable for their actions as Wikipedia editors. However, the Board's decisions are not subject to arbitration; they are simply beyond arbitration's scope. Also concur with objections to the Snowspinner amendment. Private mail and IRC logs are too subject to forgery and manipulation. Moreover, it is not the job of the Arbitration Committee to review abuses in private e-mail that should be matters for the court system or for ISP acceptable-use policies. Simply because a private e-mail refers to Wikipedia does not make it anything over which Wikipedia community institutions have business sitting in judgment. Arbitration is for forums "owned" by Wikipedia only, not for private activity that refers to Wikipedia. --FOo 08:25, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  22. When line 8 is removed, I will support. Not before then. Mike H 09:34, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
  23. Oppose, due to the so-called "Snowspinner amendment". I will change my vote if this is removed. Rje 14:57, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
  24. Will support if line 8 is omitted. If it's all or nothing, I must oppose. Carrp | Talk 15:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  25. Disagree with line 8/9 changes. JYolkowski 19:47, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  26. Belated vote against. Would support without Snowspinner's addition. Zocky 11:19, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other

[edit]
  • Abstaining due to the over-restrictions on this vote. Dori | Talk 05:11, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • I am not eligible to vote under these rules. However, the amendment to line 8 is unreasonable. Specifically, this amendment says: "IRC evidence and evidence gathered from private e-mails may, however, be used to support a claim being made about actions on Wikipedia itself." Private e-mail and IRC activity should not be relevant here. If I had the right to vote, I would support this proposal minus this absurd amendment. Deletionist 08:49, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • One proposal is to rename the section "judgment" to "judgement". Wiktionary does not have either of these words, however I checked Dictionary.com and it seems they are equally acceptable. Brianjd
    • I think judgment is american while judgement is british? American and British English differences#Common suffixes seems to think so too. I think we should go by standard Wikipedia etiquette and only change when necessary for in-document consistency, which would mean either changing either two judgments to judgement, or one judgement to judgment. The latter seems the obvious choice to me, but I have no strong feelings on the matter. --fvw* 18:43, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)
  • Who made up this totalitarian policy of 500+ edits to vote? Smells like an elitist society to me... 100 or even 50 would be fine! --Librarian Brent 04:57, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Sorry, my fault; it was the same level of requirement as the original ratification vote. James F. (talk) 22:55, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • If the snowspinner ammendment was removed, we'd have almost unanimous consent. If consensus is what we are striving for, why wouldn't we remove it and maybe bring it up in a separate vote later? -- Ram-Man 18:13, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm unsure about the so called Snowspinner Ammendment. I think the policies in place are good enough. (I may change my vote)--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @)---^--]] 11:25, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Abstain. I really want to vote yes, but feel that the amendment to line 8 is over the line. I don't know if the amendment needs to be completely removed so much as reworded, clarified and limited. -Sean Curtin 06:54, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Ratification by Jimbo

[edit]

The vote is solidly in favor of the proposal (80%+) even though only 70% was required. The goal of 100 votes was overly ambitious, probably due to the relatively high voting threshold. I'm not even sure whether or when or why a vote is necessary or valid or desirable for such things. But, since 80%+ have voted for it, and since I support it, and since these amendments do more accurately reflect our practical operations, I ratify this vote as having been completed successfully, and declare this to be a proper amendment to policy, but I don't necessarily ratify that this is the way policy amendments should be decided in the future. Maybe so, maybe not.  :-) --Jimbo Wales 22:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Regrettably, this did not demonstrate broad community support, with less than 100 80 people from a community thousands strong supporting it. Further, there has been long-standing practice that the Committee enforces the policies of this community and at least one of the clauses may be taken as changing that. Finally, as Chairman of hte board of the Wikimedia Foundation, and a clear benificiary of this proposal, whcih makes you immune from the policies of this community, you should be recusing yourself from this matter, not declaring that a vote which did not reach it s targets passed anyway. For these reasons, I urge you to reconsider your decision. Since this move to change it failed, I suggest trying one vote per proposed policy change, that is the procedure which the amendment suggested might be appropriate. Jamesday 23:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I must admit that I share James' concerns. Particularly given that I, a long-term daily contributor was not even aware that these amendments were being voted upon and so had no previous chance to point out problems with them. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:01, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
I am not yet qualified to vote, therefore I may not be qualified to speak, but I have been a steady contributer to Wikipedia since the end of December, yet I had no idea that these amendments were being considered. In the future, it might be nice if Wikipedians were given advance notification. Furthermore, and with all due respect to Jimbo, (and I really do have the utmost respect for Mr. Wales) if you are going to set a minimum of 100 votes, then by God you should stick to it! Or else what is the point of having a vote at all? Given the huge number of people who contribute to Wikipedia, I don't think it would have taken all that long for 100 eligiable voters to show up and be counted. Jimbo may be the king, but when the king asks for an opinion, shouldn't he wait until his advisors shut their mouths? My apologies if I have spoken out of turn. *Kat* 03:15, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Jimbo's the king, though. He gets to amend whatever policy he likes. This is very jolly though. It's rather like the 1640s. An absolute king devolved some of his powers to the people then. The only way Jimbo would get not to act like God is the community leaves him behind, as it did Charles.Dr Zen 02:25, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have never before heard used "left behind" as a euphemism for "beheaded." Shimmin 03:07, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
One problem with changing the "rules", ex post facto, is that the rules affect how people vote. For example, I might have voted "No", but decided it wasn't necessary, since I assumed that the 100 vote "requirement" wasn't going to be met ;-) Paul August ☎ 11:10, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
No way! It is completely unfair to change the rules after the voting has begun. I refuse to believe that anybody could consider this vote ratified without quorum having been reached. There are well over 100 users on the English Wikipedia capable of voting. In fact, aren't there about 400 admins, including myself? I suggest that the new page to hold a re-vote on these issues be frozen to voting until quorum has been reached here. When that happens, it should make all the sense in the world to hold the re-vote, although that smells quite fishy, if you ask me. These amendments should either pass or fail. --Ryan! | Talk 00:46, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

"The BDFL is a tacit acknowledgement that communal, consensus-based decision-making within such groups occasionally runs up against obstacles for which a single authoritative voice can be useful." Benevolent Dictator for Life 4.250.201.183 13:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect to Mr. Wales, this ratification sets an precedent that is not welcome. In particular as this ratification benefits directly the ratifier. Not a good example for consesus building IMO. In the future, you may consider a better information policy to increase the number of votes. --Zappaz 02:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Proposed_amendment_ratification_vote&oldid=1089275328"