Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/proposed amendment revote

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

✘ This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is retained as a historical archive.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus has become unclear. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you should seek broader input via a forum such as the proposals page of the village pump.
The voting on these proposed amendments has now closed. Please do not add more votes or comment on this page. If you wish to discuss this page, please go to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration policy/proposed amendment revote. All the proposals failed. In each instance the proposals failed as fewer than 100 votes were cast. In some cases the proposals also failed to reach 80% support.

The following is an attempt to address the fiasco caused by Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Proposed amendment ratification vote.

Votes shall open at 00:01 14 March 2005 UTC; votes for individual amendments shall close at 23:59 28 March 2005 UTC. Those amendments with at least 80% support and at least 100 votes in total at this point shall be considered to have passed and will be implemented in Wikipedia:Arbitration policy. Those without 80% support or without 100 votes in total shall be considered to have failed and may be subject to a revote at a later date when any concerns raised in the vote for that amendment have been addressed. There are no account restrictions on voting, except that you should only vote with one account - obvious sockpuppet accounts shall not have their votes count towards official totals.

Please also see Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Proposals, where more proposals are in the works.

Please direct significant discussion to the talk page.

Contents

[edit] Amendment A1

[edit] Text of changes

[edit] Jurisdiction

Change Line 3

2. Where a dispute has not gone through Mediation, the Arbitrators may refer the dispute to the Mediation Committee if it believes Mediation is likely to help.

... to:

2. Where a dispute has not gone through Mediation, or the earlier steps in the dispute resolution process, the Committee may reject, suggesting that such steps should be taken first, if they believe that it is likely to help.

[edit] Vote

[edit] Support

  1. Rje 00:21, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  00:24, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  3. --jag123 00:25, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Carbonite | Talk 00:26, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. -- grm_wnr          00:28, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. JRM 00:30, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  7. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:31, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. — Dan | Talk 00:31, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  9. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:38, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  10. Raven42 00:50, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  11. Korath (Talk) 00:56, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Neutralitytalk 01:23, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  13. --SPUI (talk) 01:32, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  14. ugen64 02:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  15. Mailer Diablo 03:12, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  16. Carnildo 03:34, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  17. Bratsche (talk) 04:18, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  18. Antandrus 04:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  19. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  20. +sj + 06:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  21. AlanBarrett 08:13, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  22. Iain 11:27, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  23. Warofdreams 12:22, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  24. Chris 73 Talk 13:08, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  25. Johnleemk | Talk 13:50, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  26. Brion 14:02, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  27. Circeus 15:28, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  28. Angela
  29. Trilobite (Talk) 17:03, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  30. Smoddy (tgec) 17:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  31. CryptoDerk 17:29, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  32. Wgfinley 18:55, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  33. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 18:56, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  34. JoshW 21:52, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  35. JesseW 23:14, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  36. Ryan! | Talk 23:29, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  37. Goobergunch|? 01:29, 15 Mar 2005(UTC)
  38. kaal 05:56, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  39. AllyUnion (talk) 07:10, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  40. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 13:28, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  41. zoney ♣ talk 14:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  42. Golbez 15:39, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  43. Junkyardprince 17:28, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  44. Rad Racer 18:02, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  45. Lisamaus 18:32, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Probable sockpuppet; vote is user's first edit. -- Grunt   ҈  18:37, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
    Nope, new user. I wished to contribute in the voting process. Please explain if there is a verification process necessary. Thanks =] -- Lisamaus 19:52, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
    With respect, most Wikipedians do not tend to respect the opinions of inexperienced users. -- Grunt   ҈  20:04, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
    Your opinion is noted. With respect, unless there is a policy denying my right to vote I will continue to participate. -- Lisamaus 20:23, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
    Nope, I don't believe there's any problem with you voting here (unless someone else raises an objection!). -- Grunt   ҈  01:53, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)
  46. Neigel von Teighen 21:10, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  47. llywrch 23:19, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  48. ➥the Epopt 02:33, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  49. Thanks,
    Luc "Somethingorother" French 04:32, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  50. --Aphaea* 05:31, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  51. Delirium 06:51, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  52. Fred Bauder 11:34, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  53. --JuntungWu 12:54, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  54. Radiant_* 15:15, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  55. BesigedB (talk) 10:50, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  56. Nohat 21:48, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  57. Gkhan 01:50, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  58. support Dbroadwell 03:50, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  59. Support--Comrade Nick @)---^-- 10:19, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  60. Markaci 2005-03-19 T 12:16 Z
  61. Ethereal 15:21, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  62. Inter\Echo 15:46, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  63. mav 04:08, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  64. Rhobite 04:37, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  65. Paul August ☎ 18:44, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  66. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 10:54, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  67. — Matt Crypto 11:38, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  68. —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  69. _R_ 00:28, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  70. — mark ✎ 19:35, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  71. ABCD 02:53, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  72. Kbdank71 21:08, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  73. Dan100 09:14, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  74. JCarriker 11:25, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  75. — Asbestos | Talk 13:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  76. Andrew pmk 22:22, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  77. Slac speak up! 06:24, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. I oppose the concept of community ratification of arbitration committee policy. Just edit the policy page. I'm going to copy this statement to the oppose section of each amendment. -- Tim Starling 01:24, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  2. I agree with you, Tim Starling. Scott Gall 22:46, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. This is a silly amendment and overly formal. Pragmatically they should be doing this anyway. And what Tim said - why do we need to ratify anything? If Jimbo is simply imbuing folks with power our approval is nothing more than a farce - and my opposal too, I guess. --Alterego 08:13, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  4. I oppose because the new wording is hard to understand. In particular, there seems to be a discontinuity with paragraph 1: Committee refers to Arbitrators and then Committee rejects. Rejects what? Rejects allowing the Arbitrators to hear what Committee referred to them in the first place? — Sebastian 06:13, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

[edit] Other

[edit] Amendment A2

[edit] Text of changes

[edit] Jurisdiction

Add Line 8

7. The Committee has jurisdiction over the official mailing list "WikiEN-l" and the English Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/) only; its jurisdiction does not cover the IRC channels, private email exchanges, nor any other arena of conflict or dispute.

[edit] Vote

[edit] Support

  1. Rje 00:21, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  00:24, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  3. --jag123 00:25, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Carbonite | Talk 00:27, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. JRM 00:31, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  6. Korath (Talk) 00:58, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 01:46, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  8. ugen64 02:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  9. Mailer Diablo 03:15, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  10. Carnildo 03:35, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  11. Bratsche (talk) 04:19, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Antandrus 04:58, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  13. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  14. +sj + 07:17, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  15. AlanBarrett 08:13, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  16. Chris 73 Talk 13:06, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  17. Johnleemk | Talk 13:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  18. Brion 14:10, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  19. Trilobite (Talk) 17:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  20. Smoddy (tgec) 17:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  21. CryptoDerk 17:31, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  22. Wgfinley 18:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  23. JoshW 21:56, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  24. Ryan! | Talk 23:31, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  25. Goobergunch|? 01:30, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  26. Rad Racer 18:06, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  27. Neigel von Teighen 21:13, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  28. ➥the Epopt 02:33, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  29. --Aphaea* 04:59, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  30. Delirium 06:51, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  31. Since A2.2 was removed, I change my vote back to support -- grm_wnr Esc 10:22, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  32. Radiant_* 15:15, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  33. InShaneee 15:47, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  34. BesigedB (talk) 10:51, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  35. Dbroadwell 03:51, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  36. Rhobite 04:37, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  37. — Matt Crypto 11:40, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  38. Kbdank71 21:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  39. JCarriker 11:29, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  40. Andrew pmk 22:23, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:32, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) — To clarify my vote: I don't think the Arbitration Committee should have jurisdiction over anything at all except for Wikipedia (even though Jimbo Wales has said that Wikipedia rules apply to the mailing list (I must respectfully disagree with him)).
  2. Angela (not the mailing list)
  3. AllyUnion (talk) 07:14, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) (agreed, not the mailing list. Mailing list can be used as a reference, but the arbitration committee should not be dealing with the mailing list.)
    See counter proposal at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Proposals/Official mailing list regarding the mailing list. -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:39, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. zoney ♣ talk 14:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) As per above re: mailing list
  5. llywrch 23:27, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) Another not wanting to grant jurisdiction over the mailing list
    Congratulations on winning the half-million pool. Scott Gall 22:50, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Leave it open on a case by case basis. RickK 07:00, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Should cover IRC private emails or any other significant interaction wherever or however it occurs which relates to Wikipedia Fred Bauder 11:37, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
    So you're back from Wikinfo? But why? Scott Gall 22:50, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. I oppose the concept of community ratification of arbitration committee policy. Just edit the policy page. -- Tim Starling 01:24, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Such things as harrasment can occur in IRC aswell and ArbCom should have the power to ban people from there too. Gkhan 01:55, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  10. --Silverback 10:20, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) Non-wikipedia and wickien harrassment should be considered if it is evidence based.
  11. Oppose (what Rick said)--Comrade Nick @)---^-- 10:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  12. Markaci 2005-03-19 T 12:16 Z
  13. Not the mailing list. Inter\Echo 15:48, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  14. Not the mailing list. Paul August ☎ 18:49, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  15. Not WikiEN-L. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 11:01, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  16. As above: not the mailing list. —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  17. What they said: not the mailing list. — mark ✎ 19:44, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  18. Not the mailing list. Give everyone who needs power as little as necessary to be effective --Alterego 08:09, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  19. Arbcom should have jurisdiction over Wikipedia only Dan100 09:14, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  20. Jurisdiction over Wikipedia only, as others have said. — Asbestos | Talk 13:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  21. Wikipedia only. 119 01:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other

  1. ArbCom should actually cover IRC as well. JuntungWu 12:55, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Yeah. And give ArbCom power over the largest ten WPs (English, German, Japanese, French, Swedish, Polish, Dutch, Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese.) Scott Gall 22:54, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Agree with Scott --Silas Snider (talk) 17:23, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Amendment A2.1

[edit] Text of changes

[edit] Jurisdiction

Change Line 8

7. The Committee has jurisdiction over the official mailing list "WikiEN-l" and the English Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/) only; its jurisdiction does not cover the IRC channels, private email exchanges, nor any other arena of conflict or dispute.

...to:

7. The Committee has jurisdiction over the official mailing list "WikiEN-l" and the English Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/) only; its jurisdiction does not cover the IRC channels, private email exchanges, nor any other arena of conflict or dispute. IRC evidence and evidence gathered from private e-mails may, however, be used to support a claim being made about actions on Wikipedia itself.

[edit] Vote

[edit] Support

  1. You can't base a case entirely on this kind of evidence, however, and this doesn't mean we cover non-Wikipedia disputes. -- Grunt   ҈  00:26, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 01:24, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Carnildo 03:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Iain 11:27, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Chris 73 Talk 13:07, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  7. What Grunt said. Also, if a Wikipedia editor is harassing another Wikipedia editor because of incident(s) on Wikipedia, it doesn't matter where the exchange occurred. Johnleemk | Talk 14:03, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. Angela (supporting because the 2nd part is needed, but I still oppose the part saying they have jurisdiction over the mailing list)
  9. CryptoDerk 17:32, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  10. ➥the Epopt 02:33, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  11. Delirium 06:51, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support. JuntungWu 12:56, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  13. I agree with Angela. If an editor is sending me emails dripping with vitriol because of my editing at Wikipedia, and also violating policy here, I think the AC needs to be able to use those emails to help consider if this is a good faith user, someone who is simply misinformed or miscommunicating, or someone who is out for blood. Jwrosenzweig 23:57, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  14. --Silverback 10:23, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) evidence of harrassement related to wikipedia should be considered on its merits, even if conducted on media outside arb jurisdiction.
  15. Disputes spill over into other media - this evidence should be admissible. Rhobite 04:39, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  16. If IRC logs or emails are forged, all the other party needs to do is say so. This is a very important addition. silsor 17:51, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. Rje 00:23, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  2. --jag123 00:26, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. -- grm_wnr          00:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. JRM 00:32, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  5. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:35, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) — To clarify my vote: I don't think the Arbitration Committee should have jurisdiction over anything at all except for Wikipedia (even though Jimbo Wales has said that Wikipedia rules apply to the mailing list (I must respectfully disagree with him)).
  6. Carbonite | Talk 00:35, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. Mrfixter 00:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. Far too easy to forge. —Korath (Talk) 00:59, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  9. I have written a counter-proposal to this amendment which defines more specific rules for what constitutes acceptable evidence. Please review and discuss at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Proposals/Evidence scope. -- Netoholic @ 02:16, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  10. ugen64 02:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  11. Mailer Diablo 03:15, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  12. Bratsche (talk) 04:20, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  13. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:46, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  14. This seems an empty clause; it's out of place in the jurisdiction section, and doesn't actually do anything as there is not any limit mentioned to the scope of allowable evidence which this would be an exception to. --Brion 14:09, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  15. This isn't a matter of state security. Smoddy (tgec) 17:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  16. Believe tighter wording on evidence that Netoholic has proposed is in order though. --Wgfinley 18:52, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  17. This is excessive, and too easily forged. JoshW 22:15, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  18. Ryan! | Talk 23:33, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  19. IRC logs can be faked, e-mails even more so Goobergunch|? 01:32, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  20. The last sentence is inappropriate, should be elsewhere. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:26, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  21. Rad Racer 14:25, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  22. zoney ♣ talk 14:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  23. Neigel von Teighen 21:29, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  24. Junkyardprince 23:52, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  25. ElBenevolente 02:50, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  26. If an interaction involving a Wikipedia user relates to Wikipedia we should have jurisdiction over it and be able to consider evidence which relates to it Fred Bauder 11:41, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
    Um...that seems kind of out of place here. Why are you opposing, exactly? Johnleemk | Talk 13:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  27. InShaneee 15:49, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  28. I oppose the concept of community ratification of arbitration committee policy. Just edit the policy page. -- Tim Starling 01:24, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  29. To easy to forge, as many has pointed out Gkhan 02:01, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  30. No--Comrade Nick @)---^-- 10:25, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  31. Markaci 2005-03-19 T 12:16 Z
  32. Ethereal 15:26, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC) Can be forged, disadvantages less tech-savvy users.
  33. IRC logs are easily forgable. Inter\Echo 15:50, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  34. Paul August ☎ 18:51, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  35. Brodo 00:30, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  36. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 11:03, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  37. Hapsiainen 20:40, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  38. Forging an e-mail is possible, as is misleading quotation. The damage done by a forged e-mail, or a twisted quotation from a real e-mail, is not easily undone. I don't know much about IRC but it seems like forgery wouldn't be difficult there either, and impersonation seems a real possibility. —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  39. _R_ 00:30, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  40. Forgability. — mark ✎ 19:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  41. Not the mailing list. --Alterego 08:07, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  42. I don't like the idea of such an easily forgable evidence source to be used in such a serious environment. Mo0[talk] 03:39, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  43. Dan100 09:14, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  44. Far to hard to verify. -JCarriker 11:31, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  45. — Asbestos | Talk 13:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other

[edit] Amendment A3

[edit] Text of changes

[edit] Jurisdiction

Add Line 9

8. As a body reporting to the Wikimedia Foundation Board, which has the ability to direct the Committee to reach a verdict or otherwise act in a particular way, the Committee has no jurisdiction over the members of the Board.

It should be noted that this is a simple fact, not a policy that can be set by a vote. Any jurisdiction that the arbcom has over board members has to be by tradition and convention, not based on a policy vote. --Jimbo Wales 04:56, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

[edit] Support

  1. Iff A3.1 also passes. -- Grunt   ҈  00:24, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  2. — Dan | Talk 00:33, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Iff A3.1. Korath (Talk) 01:03, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 01:25, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Iff A3.1 Mailer Diablo 03:14, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. Iff A3.1 passes --Carnildo 03:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. Wgfinley 18:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  9. Iff A3.1 passes --Silas Snider (talk) 17:28, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. --jag123 00:27, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Rje 00:29, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  3. AlanBarrett 08:13, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) (Support A3.1, but oppose A3.)
  4. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC), the Committee should have the ability to recommend action against board members if a member of the board is to abuse ones powers, ie in the way shareholders of a corporation or members of an org have with their respective boards. As well as take emergency action.
  5. The arbcom is to act on the policy of this community, not the direction of the Foundation. It's up to the Foundation to persuade this community, not impose a decision via the arbcom. The arbcom reports to us, not the Foundation. Jamesday 13:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. What Jamesday said. If Angela (no offense meant) goes insane and starts acting like Will On Wheels, she should be blocked. It's absolutely clear-cut and common sense. Johnleemk | Talk 14:05, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. The present arbitration policy makes no mention of the arbcom reporting to the Wikimedia board or the board having the power to direct it to make certain decisions. I don't think that would be a particularly wise change to make, but even if it were made it would be inappropriate for the arbcom to recuse itself from jurisdiction over board members behaving badly on en.wikipedia. Rather, the board member should then recuse him or herself from involvement in any decision to force the arbcom. --Brion 14:17, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Angela (3.1 is better))
  9. Trilobite (Talk) 17:06, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) support 3.1
  10. Smoddy (tgec) 17:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  11. CryptoDerk 17:37, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  12. JoshW 22:22, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  13. Ryan! | Talk 23:34, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  14. zoney ♣ talk 14:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  15. Neigel von Teighen 21:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  16. ➥the Epopt 02:33, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  17. --Aphaea* 05:04, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  18. Delirium 06:51, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  19. Members of the board should be treated like anybody else. RickK 07:01, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  20. If Jimbo or a member of the board chooses to be a Wikipedia user, their editing or other activities as a user should be subject to arbcom jurisdiction. That they may as a practical matter ignore rulings or refuse to comply is another matter. Fred Bauder 11:45, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  21. Redundant, could lead to conflict. Gazpacho 11:33, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  22. I oppose the concept of community ratification of arbitration committee policy. Just edit the policy page. -- Tim Starling 01:24, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  23. Gkhan 01:59, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  24. After reading the statements of the other voters, I can now only agree that the Board, if they so choose to edit, should be bound by all of the rules that bind other "normal" users. Bratsche (talk) 07:00, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  25. Dbroadwell 03:54, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  26. Evil saltine 09:11, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  27. No one should be above the law on wikipedia (and what Rick said ^_^)--Comrade Nick @)---^-- 10:27, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  28. Members of the board should be equally treated as everyone else. Inter\Echo 15:53, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  29. Same as Inter Echo. Scott Gall 22:57, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  30. Markaci 2005-03-20 T 08:45 Z
  31. Makes no difference either way. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 11:04, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  32. _R_ 00:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  33. Everything is said already. — mark ✎ 19:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  34. Kbdank71 21:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  35. Jimbo's comment concerns me. --Alterego 08:05, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  36. Dan100 09:14, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  37. JCarriker 11:34, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  38. Agree with Jamesday and Fred Bauder. — Asbestos | Talk 13:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  39. 119 01:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  40. Concur w/ Jamesday and Fred Bauder. Slac speak up! 06:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other

  1. Support in combination with 3.1, obviously. -- grm_wnr          00:47, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. The Committee should have jurisdiction over every contributor. The trick is that not everyone is a contributor all the time. To take the most extreme example: the Committee should be able to ban Jimbo Wales, but this would not be allowed to interfere with his duties as Board Member (so in practice, he would still be able to edit). Likewise, Board Members should have no jurisdiction over the Committee where their roles as contributors are concerned (Jimbo Wales would not be allowed to tell the Committee to drop their verdict against him, or participate in Board meetings deciding so.) No vote on this or any of the other jurisdiction issues. JRM 00:53, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
    The arbcom is a delegation of my powers. If the arbcom ever did rule against me, it is very likely that I would -- as a matter of courtesy and convention -- abide by the ruling. But as a simple matter of fact, any jurisdiction that the arbcom has over the board has to come from the board not from a community vote.--Jimbo Wales 05:04, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support w/ 3.1 ugen64 02:47, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that this is a simple fact, not a policy that can be set by a vote. Any jurisdiction that the arbcom has over board members has to be by tradition and convention, not based on a policy vote. --Jimbo Wales 04:56, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Policy is simply a formalized statement of community consensus, and can be set by a vote (among other means). Jurisdiction over the board is not legally enforceable, but the board members are still expected to abide by community-defined policy when editing on the en: Wikipedia. Nobody is arguing legal jurisdiction, because this isn't a courtroom. --Delirium 06:55, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a seperation of the concepts of account, personality and person would be useful. Any editing by any personality in any account or anonymously can be tried, convicted and sentenced. But in practical terms, a person who chooses a different personality (and account) is free to try again. Board members are members as persons, not personalities or accounts. But what do I know? I'm anon... 4.250.201.183 14:10, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Amendment A3.1

[edit] Text of changes

[edit] Jurisdiction

Change Line 9 (or add Line 9 if A3 does not pass)

8. As a body reporting to the Wikimedia Foundation Board, which has the ability to direct the Committee to reach a verdict or otherwise act in a particular way, the Committee has no jurisdiction over the members of the Board.

...to:

8. As a body reporting to the Wikimedia Foundation Board, which has the ability to direct the Committee to reach a verdict or otherwise act in a particular way, the Committee has no jurisdiction over the members of the Board when acting in an official capacity.

[edit] Vote

[edit] Support

  1. Grunt   ҈  00:24, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  2. --jag123 00:28, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Rje 00:30, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Carbonite | Talk 00:31, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. — Dan | Talk 00:34, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:37, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. -- grm_wnr          00:42, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. Korath (Talk) 01:03, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Neutralitytalk 01:26, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  11. ugen64 02:47, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  12. Mailer Diablo 03:16, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  13. Carnildo 03:42, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  14. Bratsche (talk) 04:24, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  15. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:54, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  16. +sj + 07:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  17. AlanBarrett 08:13, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) (Support A3.1, but oppose A3.)
  18. Iain 11:27, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  19. Warofdreams 12:26, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  20. Chris 73 Talk 13:09, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  21. Circeus 15:32, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  22. Angela (supporting because it's better than amendment 3. Not convinced the wording is right though - feel free to ignore this vote if it's seen as a conflict of interest)
  23. By my understanding, this is lessening the power of the board. Smoddy (tgec) 17:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  24. CryptoDerk 17:34, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  25. Wgfinley 19:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  26. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 19:07, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  27. JoshW 22:35, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  28. Ryan! | Talk 23:40, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  29. zoney ♣ talk
  30. ➥the Epopt 02:33, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  31. Thanks,
    Luc "Somethingorother" French 04:34, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  32. Fred Bauder 11:47, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support. No conditions attached. ArbCom's powers come from the board. JuntungWu 12:59, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  34. Seems obvious enough to me, but I think the language does clarify that if, say, Jimbo violates the 3 revert rule a lot, the AC can certainly accept a case involving him, and even impose editing restrictions if necessary. If, however, the Board directs Jimbo to take an action here, Jimbo can't therefore be punished simply because he's acting in his capacity as a member of the board. Jwrosenzweig 00:00, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  35. Inter\Echo 15:55, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  36. Markaci 2005-03-20 T 08:45 Z
  37. silsor 17:53, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  38. It's just a statement of fact, but there's no reason it shouldn't be reiterated here. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 11:05, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  39. llywrch 23:57, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  40. Silas Snider (talk) 17:26, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  41. — mark ✎ 20:26, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  42. Andrew pmk 22:28, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  43. — Asbestos | Talk 15:00, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. The arbcom is to act on the policy of this community, not the direction of the Foundation. It's up to the Foundation to persuade this community, not impose a decision via the arbcom. The arbcom reports to us, not the Foundation. For that reason, even though I'm happy enough to have the board members immunine when acting officially, I have to vote against this paragraph revision. Jamesday 13:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Jamesday is just mistaken about this. The arbcom acts as a delegation of my power. Jamesday may not agree with this, but it is the way the arbcom was created.--Jimbo Wales 05:02, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. What Jamesday said. Following this line of logic, admins are subject to the board's authority as well. Johnleemk | Talk 13:42, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Admins *are* subject to the board's authority, make no mistake about it. The board has the right to set policy, and this includes removing admins, changing the powers of admins, etc.--Jimbo Wales 05:02, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. The present arbitration policy makes no mention of the arbcom reporting to the Wikimedia board or the board having the power to direct it to make certain decisions. I don't think that would be a particularly wise change to make, but even if it were made it would be inappropriate for the arbcom to recuse itself from jurisdiction over board members behaving badly on en.wikipedia. Rather, the board member should then recuse him or herself from involvement in any decision to force the arbcom. --Brion 14:19, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neigel von Teighen 21:24, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Delirium 06:51, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Redundant, could lead to conflict. Gazpacho 11:35, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. I oppose the concept of community ratification of arbitration committee policy. Just edit the policy page. -- Tim Starling 01:24, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  8. The arbcom were elected to represent the vishes of the community, and as such they should have power over every user on wikipedia, be it a developer or a member of the board. No one should be "above the law". Gkhan 02:07, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  9. No--Comrade Nick @)---^-- 10:44, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  10. I fail to see which possible cases this policy is supposed to address. _R_ 00:40, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  11. Kbdank71 21:18, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  12. 119 01:57, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other

  1. I'm neutral as to whether or not "when acting in an official capacity" should be added. Scott Gall

[edit] Amendment A4

[edit] Text of changes

[edit] Jurisdiction

Add Line 10

9. Developers are similarly considered to act as agents of the Foundation and so the Committee has no jurisdiction over the members of the Development Committee.

[edit] Vote

[edit] Support

  1. Iff A4.1 also passes. -- Grunt   ҈  00:24, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  2. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:37, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Iff A4.1. —Korath (Talk) 01:04, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Iff A4.1 passes --Carnildo 03:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Iff A4.1 passes Bratsche (talk) 04:29, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Iff A4.1 passes Wgfinley 19:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. Scott Gall 23:03, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. --jag123 00:28, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Rje 00:31, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 01:28, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Mailer Diablo 03:16, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. AlanBarrett 08:13, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) (Support A4.1, but oppose A4.)
  7. The arbcom is to act on the policy of this community, not the direction of the Foundation. It's up to the Foundation to persuade this community, not impose a decision via the arbcom. The arbcom reports to us, not the Foundation. I am one of the developers this is supposed to be benefitting. I do not want it. Jamesday 13:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. Strongly opposed. As one of the developers, I find the idea of this amendment very disturbing. Our high level of access to the servers is a position which demands trust, and being "above the law" as participants on some particular wiki would be very much not appropriate. --Brion 13:54, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  9. What Brion and Jamesday said. Johnleemk | Talk 14:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  10. Angela (there is no clearly defined "Development Committee", so it makes no sense anyway)
  11. Ditto Angela Smoddy (tgec) 17:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  12. JoshW 22:39, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  13. Development Committee? --Ryan! | Talk 23:41, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  14. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 13:30, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  15. zoney ♣ talk 14:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  16. Neigel von Teighen 21:30, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  17. ➥the Epopt 02:33, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  18. ElBenevolente 02:48, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  19. --Aphaea* 05:14, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  20. Delirium 06:51, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  21. What Brion said. RickK 07:03, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  22. If a Wikipedia developer chooses to edit and engage in personal interactions as a Wikipedia user the Arbcom should have jurisdiction over those activities Fred Bauder 11:52, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  23. Oppose, developers should be answerable to arbcom. Gazpacho 11:38, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  24. I oppose the concept of community ratification of arbitration committee policy. Just edit the policy page. -- Tim Starling 01:24, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  25. Gkhan 02:08, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  26. No--Comrade Nick @)---^-- 10:46, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  27. Inter\Echo 15:56, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  28. Markaci 2005-03-20 T 08:45 Z
  29. Per Brion. —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  30. Strongly Oppose --Silas Snider (talk) 17:31, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  31. What Brion said. And Angela's point is well taken too. — mark ✎ 20:29, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  32. Kbdank71 21:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  33. Dan100 09:14, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  34. Agree with Jamesday. — Asbestos | Talk 13:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  35. Andrew pmk 22:29, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other

  1. Support in combination with 4.1, obviously. -- grm_wnr          00:46, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support with 4.1 ugen64 02:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. There's no development committee I gather. JuntungWu 13:01, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Does the difference between the real world and the virtual world matter here? 4.250.201.183 14:25, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Amendment A4.1

[edit] Text of changes

[edit] Jurisdiction

Change Line 10 (or add Line 10 if A4 does not pass)

9. Developers are similarly considered to act as agents of the Foundation and so the Committee has no jurisdiction over the members of the Development Committee.

...to:

9. Developers are similarly considered to act as agents of the Foundation and so the Committee has no jurisdiction over the members of the Development Committee when acting in an official capacity.

[edit] Vote

[edit] Support

  1. Grunt   ҈  00:24, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  2. --jag123 00:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Carbonite | Talk 00:31, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Rje 00:32, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  5. — Dan | Talk 00:35, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. -- grm_wnr          00:42, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:55, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. Korath (Talk) 01:04, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Neutralitytalk 01:38, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:58, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  11. ugen64 02:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  12. Mailer Diablo 03:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  13. Carnildo 03:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  14. Bratsche (talk) 04:31, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  15. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  16. AlanBarrett 08:13, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) (Support A4.1, but oppose A4.)
  17. Iain 11:27, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  18. Warofdreams 12:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  19. Chris 73 Talk 13:09, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  20. Circeus 15:31, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  21. Smoddy (tgec) 17:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  22. Wgfinley 19:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  23. zoney ♣ talk 14:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  24. ➥the Epopt 02:33, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  25. Thanks,
    Luc "Somethingorother" French 04:36, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  26. Fred Bauder 11:54, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  27. Dbroadwell 03:56, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  28. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 11:07, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. The arbcom is to act on the policy of this community, not the direction of the Foundation. It's up to the Foundation to persuade this community, not impose a decision via the arbcom. The arbcom reports to us, not the Foundation. I am one of the developrs this is supposed to be benefitting. I do not want it. Jamesday 13:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Strongly opposed. As one of the developers, I find the idea of this amendment very disturbing. Our high level of access to the servers is a position which demands trust, and being "above the law" as participants on some particular wiki would be very much not appropriate. If we're acting like jerks when acting 'in an official capacity', we're still acting like jerks and that's not okay. --Brion 13:57, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Absolutely, Brion and Jamesday. Johnleemk | Talk 14:08, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Angela (would be better to say when doing development work than when acting in an official capacity, since there's no definition of what is "official" for a developer)
  5. Ryan! | Talk 23:46, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  6. JoshW 03:24, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  7. There was a recent incident when a developer used direct access to servers to strip administrators of their privileges during a protection war. Any such action really needs to be subject to Wikipedia dispute resolution, which means accountability to the Arbitration Committee. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 13:35, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    The person who removed the sysop capabilities from the blocking admins wasn't a developer and didn't use direct server access to do it. Was a bureaucrat with an out of date setting on their account, which a developer removed when they found out about it. I've explained in more detail on your talk page. Jamesday 17:06, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. Neigel von Teighen 21:33, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  9. --Aphaea* 05:22, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)　What Brion said. 　
  10. Delirium 06:51, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  11. "Official capacity" too vague for developers. Gazpacho 11:41, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  12. Rad Racer 17:59, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  13. I oppose the concept of community ratification of arbitration committee policy. Just edit the policy page. -- Tim Starling 01:24, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  14. The arbcom were elected to represent the vishes of the community, and as such they should have power over every user on wikipedia, be it a developer or a member of the board. No one should be "above the law". Gkhan 02:10, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  15. OpposeComrade Nick @)---^-- 10:48, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  16. Inter\Echo 15:57, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  17. Markaci 2005-03-20 T 08:45 Z
  18. Per Brion. —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  19. Strongly Oppose --Silas Snider (talk) 17:30, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  20. What Brion said. — mark ✎ 20:30, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  21. Kbdank71 21:22, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  22. Dan100 09:14, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  23. — Asbestos | Talk 13:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  24. Andrew pmk 22:30, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other

  1. There's no development committee I gather. JuntungWu 13:11, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. They can decide on whether they follow the guideline or not if they're not acting in an official capacity (if the "Bill" is passed.) Scott Gall 23:06, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Amendment B1

[edit] Text of changes

[edit] Requests

Change Line 2

The Arbitrators will accept a case if four or more Arbitrators have voted to hear it. The Arbitrators will reject a case if one week has passed without this occurring AND four or more Arbitrators have voted not to hear it. Individual Arbitrators will provide a rationale for their vote if so moved, or if specifically requested.

... to:

The Arbitrators will accept a case if four or more Arbitrators have voted to hear it. The Arbitrators will reject a case if four or more Arbitrators have voted not to hear it. Individual Arbitrators will provide a rationale for their vote if so moved, or if specifically requested.

[edit] Vote

[edit] Support

  1. Grunt   ҈  00:24, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  2. --jag123 00:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Carbonite | Talk 00:32, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Rje 00:33, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  5. — Dan | Talk 00:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. JRM 00:55, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  7. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:57, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. Neutralitytalk 01:46, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  9. ugen64 02:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  10. Mailer Diablo 03:17, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  11. Johnleemk | Talk 14:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  12. Angela
  13. Wgfinley 19:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  14. JoshW 22:42, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  15. — Asbestos | Talk 13:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. Introduces a contradiction, as Raven42 notes. A four-four split in the current wording is accepted; in the new wording, it could be interpreted either way. —Korath (Talk) 01:11, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  2. As Raven42 notes. --Carnildo 03:46, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Needs to be clear about a split. Bratsche (talk) 04:33, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  4. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:58, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Too much power to those who might oppose it. --SPUI (talk) 06:14, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. I don't know whether "1 week" is the right time frame, but some time frame seems sensible. The purpose of the first sentence used to be that any case evoking interest should be heard; the purpose of the second should be to put a timeframe on how long arbiters have to declare their interest in hearing a case, before it can be dismissed. +sj + 09:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. Change is unclear, does not specify behavior when both four vote in favor and four vote against. Further, it allows cases to remain in 'limbo' indefinitely if they do not gather a sufficient number of votes either way; this will clutter things up unnecessarily. --Brion 14:27, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  8. I think it should be a simple majority with a quorum. Smoddy (tgec) 17:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  9. Ryan! | Talk 23:47, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  10. zoney ♣ talk 14:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) As per below - split result ambiguity is a basic condition that should be covered.
  11. After re-evaluating the options and the discussion below, I change my vote to oppose. -- grm_wnr Esc 17:24, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  12. Lisamaus 19:09, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  13. Neigel von Teighen 21:34, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  14. Rad Racer 01:28, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  15. ➥the Epopt 02:33, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  16. Ambiguous. ElBenevolente 02:46, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  17. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:19, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  18. Delirium 06:51, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  19. Contradictory wording. RickK 07:04, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  20. Fred Bauder 11:56, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  21. Ambiguous. Radiant_* 15:15, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  22. Rad Racer 18:01, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  23. I oppose the concept of community ratification of arbitration committee policy. Just edit the policy page. -- Tim Starling 01:24, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  24. Gkhan 02:13, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  25. Gives the Arb-Com too much power--Comrade Nick @)---^-- 10:52, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  26. Markaci 2005-03-19 T 12:16 Z
  27. Inter\Echo 15:59, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  28. Because there are twelve in the ArbCom and not eight, it should be "A case can be rejected if seven or more arbitrators have voted not to hear it, and a case will be accepted if seven or more arbitrators have voted to hear it. If the vote is tied, Jimbo (or me) will cast the deciding vote." Scott Gall 23:16, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  29. Rhobite 04:43, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  30. I like the idea but its contradictory as written. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 11:09, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  31. —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  32. Silas Snider (talk) 17:33, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  33. Ambiguity as pointed out by Raven42. — mark ✎ 20:32, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  34. Kbdank71 21:24, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  35. Sebastian 06:49, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
  36. Dan100 09:14, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  37. Andrew pmk 22:32, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other

This isn't sufficiently clear. What if there are four votes each way? Raven42 00:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You can't cast two votes simultaneously; whichever vote comes first shall prevail. -- Grunt   ҈  01:17, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
Oh great, a race condition. Is this strictly necessary? And if so, shouldn't it at least be made explicit in the wording? Likewise, what's the reject-by-default condition, if no longer a week? Numbers of accepts + uncast votes < 4? Alai 01:52, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Amendment C1

[edit] Text of changes

[edit] Hearing

Change Line 1

Litigants involved in cases heard by the Arbitration Committee will present their cases and evidence on a page titled something like "Case of [Username]". Litigants shall be defined as the user or users named in the case or any advocates they identify.

... to:

Litigants involved in cases heard by the Arbitration Committee will present their cases and evidence as directed on a sub-page of the case page, itself a sub-page of requests for arbitration, titled as "[Username]" or "[UsernameA] v. [UsernameB]" or the like, at the discretion of the Arbitrator responsible for opening the case. Litigants shall be defined as the user or users named in the case or any advocates they identify.

[edit] Vote

[edit] Support

  1. Grunt   ҈  00:24, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  2. --jag123 00:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Rje 00:33, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Carbonite | Talk 00:34, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. — Dan | Talk 00:37, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. -- grm_wnr          00:42, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. JRM 00:58, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  8. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:58, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  9. Korath (Talk) 01:07, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Raven42 01:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  11. --SPUI (talk) 01:33, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  12. Neutralitytalk 01:46, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  13. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:01, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  14. ugen64 02:52, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  15. Mailer Diablo 03:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  16. Carnildo 03:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  17. Bratsche (talk) 04:32, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  18. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:58, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  19. +sj + 06:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  20. Iain 11:27, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  21. Chris 73 Talk 13:10, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  22. Johnleemk | Talk 14:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  23. Brion 14:31, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  24. Smoddy (tgec) 17:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  25. Wgfinley 19:05, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  26. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 19:12, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  27. JoshW 22:45, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  28. JesseW 23:14, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  29. Ryan! | Talk 23:50, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  30. Goobergunch|? 01:37, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  31. kaal 06:07, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  32. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 13:37, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  33. zoney ♣ talk 14:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  34. Lisamaus 19:48, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  35. Neigel von Teighen 21:36, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  36. ➥the Epopt 02:33, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  37. Thanks,
    Luc "Somethingorother" French 04:42, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  38. Delirium 06:51, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  39. RickK 07:06, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  40. Fred Bauder 11:58, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  41. Radiant_* 15:15, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  42. Gkhan 02:15, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  43. JuntungWu 03:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  44. Comrade Nick @)---^-- 10:54, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  45. Markaci 2005-03-19 T 12:16 Z
  46. Inter\Echo 16:01, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  47. Rhobite 04:44, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  48. —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  49. Looks OK to me. — mark ✎ 20:41, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  50. Kbdank71 21:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  51. Dan100 09:14, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  52. — Asbestos | Talk 13:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  53. Andrew pmk 22:33, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  54. Slac speak up! 06:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. jguk 06:36, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC) The idea of having "litigants" and making it like a Court case is dreadful. If this is a quasi-legal process, it implies that those disagreeing with decisions can take their grievance to court. Get rid of legalese - or otherwise don't complain when we get a real lawsuit by a disgruntled user.
    Respectfully, this term exists only in the policy, already exists in current polic and has nothing to do with the point of this amendment. -- Grunt   ҈  14:36, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
  2. BesigedB (talk) 10:55, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) Agree with jguk. I doubt a real court case will be seen, but litigants sounds very intimidating.
    Many thanks to grunt for pointing out that this wasn't the point BesigedB (talk) 17:20, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    It very much is the case, as the proposal is seeking to force matters to be presented as though they are court cases, jguk 08:45, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    I'll just say that I don't like the concept of pseudo-courts. Take this vote as you will. BesigedB (talk) 11:16, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. I oppose the concept of community ratification of arbitration committee policy. Just edit the policy page. -- Tim Starling 01:24, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  4. This causes an even stronger legalese look to this policy. Any mistakes where the page was incorrectly titled and the page can simply be moved. r3m0t talk 15:05, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  5. I agree with the seven of you.Scott Gall 23:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other

  1. Abstain. The idea with subpages makes sense, but I think "as directed" suffices. Most reasonable laws would delegate the details. You don't want to take another vote each time you have a better style idea. — Sebastian 07:11, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

[edit] Amendment D1

[edit] Text of changes

[edit] Judgment

Rename Section to "Judgement" (oops)

[edit] Vote

[edit] Support

  1. --jag123 00:32, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. -- grm_wnr          00:42, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. JRM 00:58, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  4. I don't like the spelling judgment. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:58, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Korath (Talk) 01:09, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Carnildo 03:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. What Blankfaze said. Bratsche (talk) 04:35, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Rje 09:07, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Without e is ugly. Smoddy (tgec) 17:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  10. BesigedB (talk) 10:58, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) Either is correct, but this one is more obviously pronounced.
  11. I actually don't care, but I want to counterbalance Tim Starling's repetitive vote. I actually like this experiment in online democracy. — Sebastian 07:26, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
  12. Dan100 09:14, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  13. For crying out loud. How silly. But in any case, I do have a personal preference for judgement. Slac speak up! 06:39, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. Wiktionary considers this an "alternate spelling", after all. ;) -- Grunt   ҈  00:24, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - Google says that "judgment" is more than three times more common than "judgement." "Neutralitytalk 01:46, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Judgment seems more common. ugen64 02:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Mailer Diablo 03:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Judgment is correct, according to my spell checker and dictionary. Brion 14:32, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  7. whoops, sorry, changing my vote. dab (ᛏ) 15:06, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. Wgfinley 19:06, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  9. What kind of change is this? --Ryan! | Talk 23:51, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Judgement redirects to Judgment - I think we can trust ourselves here. Goobergunch|? 01:39, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  11. Judgment is the correct spelling, per the dictionary, Google and even wikipedia itself JoshW 03:27, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  12. zoney ♣ talk 14:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) Appears to be standard regardless of English dialect.
  13. Either is correct. RickK 07:07, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  14. I oppose the concept of community ratification of arbitration committee policy. Just edit the policy page. -- Tim Starling 01:24, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  15. Comrade Nick @)---^-- 10:55, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  16. Markaci 2005-03-19 T 12:16 Z
  17. r3m0t talk 15:06, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  18. Either is fine. Inter\Echo 16:02, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  19. Rhobite 04:45, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other

  1. Abstain, this is a silly vote. --SPUI (talk) 01:34, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Iain 11:27, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Angela (no need to vote on spelling use)
  4. Silly vote. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 13:39, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Really silly vote. kaal 15:42, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Silly vote --Neigel von Teighen 23:49, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 02:33, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. --Aphaea* 05:26, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC) So what?
  9. Silly. --JuntungWu 13:04, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  10. Irrelevant. Radiant_* 15:15, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Abstain. Either spelling is OK. Scott Gall 23:24, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  12. Who cares? -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 11:12, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  13. Why is this even up for a vote? —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  14. I vote the proponent of this gets his toenails painted pink. _R_ 01:03, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  15. What Rorro said. And headings aren't the policy. — mark ✎ 20:43, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  16. Don't need to vote on this. — Asbestos | Talk 13:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  17. Abstain. Irrelevant. Andrew pmk 22:34, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Amendment D2

[edit] Text of changes

[edit] Judgment

Change Line 1

Once the hearing has ended, the Arbitrators will release one or more detailed Arbitrators' opinions on the case. The Arbitrators will also release a judgment detailing their resolution to the dispute, which will be binding. The Arbitrators will seek to reach consensus amongst themselves on this remedy. If consensus can not be reached, a vote will be taken, with the view of the majority of the Arbitrators prevailing. Majority shall be defined as a decision supported by more than 50% of all Arbitrators who were active at the time the decision was made (see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee for the current number of active members). If no option has majority support, no decision will be made, and no action will be taken.

... to:

Once the hearing has ended, the Arbitrators will construct a consensus opinion made out of Principles (general statements about policy), Findings of Fact (findings specific to the case), Remedies (binding Decrees on what should be done), and Enforcements (conditional Decrees on what can further be done if the terms are met). Each part will be subject to a simple-majority vote amongst active non-recused Arbitrators, the list of active members being that listed on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. Dissenting votes for and opinions on parts that pass will be noted. In the event of no options for action gaining majority support, no decision will be made, and no action will be taken.

[edit] Vote

[edit] Support

  1. Grunt   ҈  00:24, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  2. --jag123 00:31, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Carbonite | Talk 00:33, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Rje 00:35, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  5. -- grm_wnr         </span> 00:42, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Raven42 00:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. JRM 00:58, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  8. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  9. Korath (Talk) 01:13, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Neutralitytalk 01:48, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  11. ugen64 02:54, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  12. Mailer Diablo 03:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  13. Carnildo 03:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  14. Bratsche (talk) 04:36, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  15. +sj + 05:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  16. Iain 11:27, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  17. Warofdreams 12:32, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  18. Chris 73 Talk 13:11, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  19. Johnleemk | Talk 14:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  20. Angela
  21. Smoddy (tgec) 17:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  22. Wgfinley 19:09, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  23. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 19:17, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  24. JesseW 23:14, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  25. Ryan! | Talk 23:52, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  26. Reflects current practice. Goobergunch|? 01:44, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  27. JoshW 03:29, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  28. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 13:40, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  29. Neigel von Teighen 23:54, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  30. ➥the Epopt 02:33, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  31. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:22, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  32. Thanks,
    Luc "Somethingorother" French 04:43, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  33. Delirium 06:51, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  34. Fred Bauder 12:37, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  35. Comrade Nick @)---^-- 11:00, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  36. Inter\Echo 16:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  37. De facto already - seems to work well. Rhobite 04:47, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  38. Markaci 2005-03-20 T 08:45 Z
  39. Silas Snider (talk) 17:39, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  40. Because it reflects current practice. — mark ✎ 20:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  41. Kbdank71 21:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  42. --Alterego 08:04, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  43. Sebastian 07:21, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC) (PS: This one really improves the wording, too!)
  44. — Asbestos | Talk 13:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  45. Andrew pmk 22:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  46. Slac speak up! 06:40, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 06:01, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. I oppose the concept of community ratification of arbitration committee policy. Just edit the policy page. -- Tim Starling 01:24, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other

Why remove the "release one or more detailed Arbitrators' opinions on the case." piece? Surely this is a sensible thing to do considering that the decision is final? With the above, there is an added degree of accountability - at least one Arbitrator's opinion needs to stand up to scrutiny. zoney ♣ talk 14:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This amendment is reflective of current practice of the committee. -- Grunt   ҈  20:10, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
Well why does current practice not match current policy then, and require an amendment? zoney ♣ talk 22:52, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have no idea. The policy and current arbcom practices predate my being aware of the proposed amendment. -- Grunt   ҈  02:17, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)
The original idea was to have opinions loosely modeled on the style of American courts, issuing majority and dissenting opinions and so on, each of which is a comprehensive view of the case. Instead, practice has developed along the lines of trying to figure out what happened, and proposing shorter, more specific findings, principles, and remedies that are voted on individually. This makes things a bit more manageable and likely to actually get done. --Delirium 02:26, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Amendment E1

[edit] Text of changes

[edit] Amendment

Add Section "Amendment"

Add Lines 1+

Amendments to the policy are subject to the following rules:
  • Exact suggested wording changes should be suggested on a page, and the presence of the page made well known.
  • Discussion should continue for at least a fortnight.
  • A small straw-poll should be taken of those discussing the suggested amendment; if there is strong support (>70%) for this amendment to go to a vote, a widely-announced full vote should be taken.
  • The vote shall be considered passed when at least 100 users have voted, and at least 80% of the votes are in support
  • When the vote has passed, the Arbitration policy shall be altered to reflect the amendment. This should be widely noted.
No changes, no matter how small or insignificant, may be made to the policy without the due process of an amendment being made in the above manner.

[edit] Vote

[edit] Support

  1. Grunt   ҈  00:24, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  2. --jag123 00:33, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Rje 00:36, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  4. -- grm_wnr          00:42, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. JRM 00:59, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  6. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 01:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. Korath (Talk) 01:16, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Neutralitytalk 01:48, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  9. ugen64 02:54, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  10. Carnildo 03:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  11. Bratsche (talk) 04:37, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  12. AlanBarrett 08:13, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  13. Johnleemk | Talk 14:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  14. Wgfinley 19:11, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  15. Things should be fairly easy to amend, that's the whole premise of the idea of a wiki, anyway JoshW 03:30, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  16. ➥the Epopt 02:33, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  17. Delirium 06:51, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 06:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC), does not state what the make up of the straw poll will be, how it will be caried out, who will be involved.
  2. The proposed voting rules are subject to gaming. There is a minimum discussion period, but no minimum voting period, and an automatic pass once a certain combination of number of votes and percentage in favor are reached. A 'rush' of organized voters (perhaps newbies or sockpuppets, perhaps not) could punch the tally past these limits in a short amount of time and declare victory. --Brion 14:57, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Angela (I object to the "No changes, no matter how small or insignificant..." part since rewording without changing the meaning should be allowed. As above - there's no need to vote on spelling changes.)
  4. "no matter how small or insignificant" seems petty. Smoddy (tgec) 17:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. The way the quorum rule is set up makes "no" votes likely to help an amendment pass. See the discussion page. RSpeer 20:31, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Ryan! | Talk 00:26, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  7. zoney ♣ talk 14:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. I think it's a too unfair system biased to reject any proposal. I strongly oppose to this amendment. --Neigel von Teighen 00:00, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  9. ElBenevolente 02:44, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  10. Object unless standards of who is eligible to vote and to participate in the straw poll are spelled out explicitly. RickK 07:09, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Rad Racer 18:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  12. I oppose the concept of community ratification of arbitration committee policy. Just edit the policy page. -- Tim Starling 01:24, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  13. Comrade Nick @)---^-- 11:02, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  14. r3m0t talk 15:16, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  15. Inter\Echo 16:06, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  16. Inflexible. Rhobite 04:49, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  17. Markaci 2005-03-20 T 08:45 Z
  18. What Angela said. — mark ✎ 20:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  19. Kbdank71 21:30, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  20. --Alterego 08:00, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  21. Dan100 09:14, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  22. Rules of straw poll should be made explicit. — Asbestos | Talk 13:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  23. Andrew pmk 22:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  24. "No matter how minor or insignificant" - good luck getting a consensus on the best spelling of judg(e)ment. Slac speak up! 06:41, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other

[edit] Amendment E1.1

[edit] Text of changes

[edit] Amendment

Change Line 6

  • The vote shall be considered passed when at least 100 users have voted, and at least 80% of the votes are in support

...to:


  • The vote shall be considered passed when at least two weeks have passed, and at least 80% of the votes are in support

[edit] Vote

[edit] Support

  1. Grunt   ҈  00:24, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  2. --jag123 00:32, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Carbonite | Talk 00:37, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. JRM 01:01, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 01:26, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  6. ugen64 02:55, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. Mailer Diablo 03:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. Chris 73 Talk 13:13, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Brion 14:58, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Circeus 15:33, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  11. — Dan | Talk 04:24, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  12. Delirium 06:51, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  13. CrazyLucifer 07:01, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  14. sounds like a good idea--Comrade Nick @)---^-- 11:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  15. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 11:15, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  16. Dan100 09:14, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  17. Neither is perfect, but this option is preferable. Slac speak up! 06:43, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. Rje 00:37, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Mrfixter 00:50, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 01:01, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. At least not unless "well-known" and "widely-announced" are defined more specifically. —Korath (Talk) 01:16, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  5. The 100 people isn't perfect, but it's a decent way of making sure it gets publicized to some extent. --SPUI (talk) 01:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Carnildo 03:50, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. 100 people needed makes publicizing the vote to the community a necessary action. Bratsche (talk) 04:39, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  8. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 06:06, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC), agree with Korath.
  9. AlanBarrett 08:13, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) (There needs to be a minimum number of votes.)
  10. Angela (there should be some quoruum, even if that's not 100)
  11. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:10, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  12. Quorum needed. I think 100 users is pretty good for something as important as the ArbCom. Smoddy (tgec) 17:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  13. Wgfinley 19:13, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  14. Ryan! | Talk 00:28, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  15. JoshW 03:50, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  16. zoney ♣ talk 14:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) even 100 is *very* small for Wikipedia, and not necessarily representative!
  17. llywrch 23:21, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC). A quorum, a window for voting, & a definition of a majority are all needed. Why should we settle for just two?
  18. ➥the Epopt 02:33, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  19. ElBenevolente 02:38, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  20. Oppose until who can vote is explicitly spelled out. RickK 07:10, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  21. Radiant_* 15:15, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  22. BesigedB (talk) 11:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  23. Rad Racer 18:07, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) Quorum needed.
  24. I oppose the concept of community ratification of arbitration committee policy. Just edit the policy page. -- Tim Starling 01:24, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  25. I oppose to the 80%. Why not absolute majority? (50% + 1 vote)? --Neigel von Teighen 21:41, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  26. There should be a quorum. JuntungWu 03:15, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  27. Inter\Echo 16:08, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  28. Markaci 2005-03-20 T 08:45 Z
  29. Hapsiainen 20:48, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  30. Silas Snider (talk) 17:42, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  31. A quorum is needed. — mark ✎ 20:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  32. Kbdank71 21:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  33. --Alterego 07:58, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  34. — Asbestos | Talk 12:54, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  35. We need a quorum. Andrew pmk 22:46, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  36. 119 01:52, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other

  1. 100 may be too much, but there should be a minimum requirement on the number of voters. -- grm_wnr          00:42, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Nitpick: most common useage to least common useage (half month, two weeks, 2 weeks, 14 days, fortnight, ...). And now that I'm on the subject, why not go for an even month? 4.250.201.183 14:40, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Replace existing wording with: "The vote shall be considered passed when it has a majority of at least 80 votes." I would also support this if there were an additional clause for a reasonable time window. (reason) — Sebastian 08:12, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)