Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Update and ratification: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Fix Linter errors. |
|||
| (19 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown) | |||
Line 128:
=Ratification referendum =
{{archive top|Closed as '''adopted''' by a clear majority of those expressing an opinion, with more than 100 in favour. [[User:Bencherlite|Bencherlite]][[User talk:Bencherlite|<i><sup>Talk</sup></i>]] 23:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)}}
Please express your preference below by voting in either the [[#Yes|yes]] or [[#No|no]] sections. If you have comments on the policy, please make them at [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Policy/Update and ratification]].
Line 137 ⟶ 138:
# [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 18:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
# [[User:Randomblue|Randomblue]] ([[User talk:Randomblue|talk]]) 18:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
# [[User:Tony1|<
# — [[User:Coren|Coren]] <sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 19:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
# <font face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Baseball Watcher|<span style="color:red;">'''Baseball'''</span>]][[User talk:Baseball Watcher|<span style="color:blue;">''' Watcher'''</span>]]</font> 19:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
# [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 19:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
# --[[User:FloNight|FloNight]][[User talk:FloNight|♥♥♥♥]] 19:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
# [[User:Timbouctou|''<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'><em>Timbouctou</em></span>'']] ([[User talk:Timbouctou|''<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'><em>talk</em></span>'']]) 19:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
# [[User:Willking1979|Willking1979]] ([[User talk:Willking1979|talk]]) 19:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
# [[User:Jenks24|Jenks24]] ([[User talk:Jenks24|talk]]) 19:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
# [[User:Nolelover|'''<span style="color:FireBrick;">Nolelover
# [[User:Dabomb87|Dabomb87]] ([[User talk:Dabomb87|talk]]) 19:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
# <span style="background-color:yellow;color:blue;">[[User:Doh5678|
# '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 19:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
# [[User:Nathan|<strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan</strong>]][[User talk:Nathan|<sup><strong style="color:#0033CC"> T </strong></sup>]] 19:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Line 160 ⟶ 161:
# [[User:Fred Bauder]] [[User talk:Fred Bauder|Talk]] 19:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
# [[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]] ([[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|talk]]) 19:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
# '''[[User:Elektrik Shoos|<
# [[User:Chester Markel|Chester Markel]] ([[User talk:Chester Markel|talk]]) 20:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
# [[User:Darrell Greenwood|Darrell_Greenwood]] ([[User talk:Darrell Greenwood|talk]]) 20:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Line 172 ⟶ 173:
# [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 20:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
# [[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]] <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup> 21:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
# - [[User Talk:Philippe|<
# [[User:the wub|the wub]] [[User_talk:The wub|<font color="green">"?!"</font>]] 21:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
# [[User:Tony Fox|Tony Fox]] <small>[[User_talk:Tony Fox|(arf!)]]</small> 21:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Line 178 ⟶ 179:
# [[User:Richwales|<u>Rich</u>wales]] ([[User talk:Richwales|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Richwales|contribs]]) 21:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
# [[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 21:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
# We could go on making quibbles and clarifications for years but the core truth of it is that this is a significant improvement on the existing document. [[user talk:Skomorokh|<span style="color: black;"><
# [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 22:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
# [[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]] ([[User talk:Elen of the Roads|talk]]) 22:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
#[[User talk:AGK|<
# -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 22:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
# —<small>[[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 23:56:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)</small>
#[[User:EWikist |<b><
# [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 00:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
# <span style="padding:2px;background-color:white;color:#666;">– [[User:Sj|SJ]][[User Talk:Sj|<font style="color:#f90;"> +</font>]]</span> 00:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Line 191 ⟶ 192:
# [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 00:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
# [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 00:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
# ~ <
# [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 02:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
# [[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] ([[User talk:Tznkai|talk]]) 02:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Line 199 ⟶ 200:
# [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 09:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
# [[User:Revcasy|Revcasy]] ([[User talk:Revcasy|talk]]) 12:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
# –[[user:xeno|<
# [[User:Woody|Woody]] ([[User talk:Woody|talk]]) 14:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
# – [[User:Iridescent|<
#[[User:Lumos3|Lumos3]] ([[User talk:Lumos3|talk]]) 17:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
# [[User:Echtoran|Echtoran]] <sup>([[User talk:Echtoran|talk]])</sup> 17:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
# '''
#[[User:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:red;">Fences</span>]]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&</span>[[User talk:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:black;">Windows</span>]] 19:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
# [[User:AlexiusHoratius|<span style="font-size:14px;font-family:times new roman;color:navy;">'''Alexius'''</span>]][[User talk:AlexiusHoratius|<span style="font-size:14px;font-family:times new roman;color:darkred;">'''Horatius'''
# [[User talk:Ocaasi|Ocaasi]] <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Ocaasi|c]]</sup> 21:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
#--[[user:White Shadows|<
# ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 22:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
# [[User:N5iln|Alan the Roving Ambassador]] ([[User talk:N5iln|talk]]) 23:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
# [[User:Sven Manguard|<font color="207004"
# — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>[[User:Ched Davis|Ched]]</b> : [[User_talk:Ched Davis|<
# [[User:Camw|Camw]] ([[User talk:Camw|talk]]) 00:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
# [[User:OlEnglish|<
# [[User:GB fan|GB fan]] ([[User talk:GB fan|talk]]) 01:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
# --''[[User:Kleinzach|<span style="color:#FF4500;letter-spacing:2px;">Klein</span>]][[User talk:Kleinzach|<span style="padding:0px 0px 1px 2px;color:white; background-color:#ACE1AF;letter-spacing:2px;">zach</span>]]'' 01:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Line 222 ⟶ 223:
# <span style="text-shadow:#294 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; class=texhtml">[[User:Berean Hunter|<font face="High Tower Text" size="2px"><b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b></font>]] ([[User talk:Berean Hunter|<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>]])</span> 03:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
# [[User:First Light|First Light]] ([[User talk:First Light|talk]]) 03:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
# [[User:Armbrust|<
# [[User:Sam Blacketer|Sam Blacketer]] ([[User talk:Sam Blacketer|talk]]) 09:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
# [[User:Lightmouse|Lightmouse]] ([[User talk:Lightmouse|talk]]) 10:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
# ... with some mild concern, because my perception is that Arbcom's remit is, very gradually, expanding, and I think there should be a discussion about Arbcom's scope and the potential need for checks and balances; but that concern is not sufficient to stop me supporting the improved policy.—[[User:S Marshall|<
# Still leaves much to be desired, but it's an improvement.--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 12:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
# [[User:CT Cooper|CT Cooper]]<small><span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> [[User talk:CT Cooper|talk]]</small> 14:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Line 231 ⟶ 232:
# On the basis that 'primarily' gives enough wiggle room to allow consensus forming processes, such as that which produced the [[WP:WESTBANK]] naming convention, but no further. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 17:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
# <font style="font-family: Georgia">[[User:Steven Walling|Steven Walling]]</font> 17:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
# <font face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Umrguy42|<
# Yes. I have some minor quibbles here and there, especially about Jimbo's involvement, but overall I support the new language. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 19:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
# Support. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 19:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
# Support overall. -- [[User:Ssilvers|Ssilvers]] ([[User talk:Ssilvers|talk]]) 21:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
# Support, hoping that the enforcement of the policy would not be absolute and uniform in all cases, and would allow for some discussion and occasional "wiggle room" as noted by PhilKnight above. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 21:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
# [[User:Glane23|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="blue" size="2">Geoff</font>]] [[User talk:Glane23|<sup><
#Why not? <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/[[User:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">ƒETCH</span>]][[User talk:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">COMMS</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">/</span>]]'''</span> 23:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
# [[User:Paul Erik|<
#[[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b><
# Agree in general that this is an improvement on the old policy on many levels, and would support this. However, I share the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Update_and_ratification&diff=432127821&oldid=432126342 reservations of Sandstein] that Arbcom ought to have no governance and policy-making powers. --[[User:Ohconfucius|<span style="color:Black;font:bold 8pt 'kristen itc';text-shadow:cyan 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em;">Ohconfucius</span>]] [[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>¡digame!</sup>]] 02:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
# I appreciate the concerns raised by the opposers, and also by the supporters here and on the talk. This is a large leap forward, having been through three (or more) years of revision. Rather than make minor changes now, we should lock this in, and then work on more incremental improvements to the policy in future. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:John Vandenberg|chat]])'''</sup></span> 05:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
# It's not perfect (but what policy is?), but it's a substantial improvement over what we have now, and for that reason alone it should be ratified. Amendments and adjustments can be considered later but the "bones" of this policy are right. [[User:Lankiveil|Lankiveil]] <sup>([[User talk:Lankiveil|speak to me]])</sup> 08:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC).
# Clearly an improvement. --[[User:OpenToppedBus|OpenToppedBus]] - [[User talk:OpenToppedBus|Talk to the driver]] 11:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
#Its a slight move in the correct direction. --[[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] | [[User_talk:Guerillero|<
# It's a nice little fiction, why not? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus|<
#As others said "Clearly an improvement." but this is <u>not to govern</u>, and I think that if there is a thing that cannot be resolved but hasn't gone to the committee, I think that it would be there duty to help even though that they were not called for. <s>I think still that people should say there alternate accounts. </s>(Misunderstood) ~~[[User:ebe123|<span style="color:#21421E;font-weight:bold">EBE123</span>]]~~ <sup>[[User talk:Ebe123|<span style="color:#0000FF">talk</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ebe123|Contribs]]</sub> 22:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
#'''<font face="Arial"><
# [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 08:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
# [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 11:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
# [[user:leevanjackson|Lee∴V]] [[User talk:leevanjackson|<
# [[User:Ling.Nut]] FWIW. – [[User:Ling.Nut2|Ling]].[[User talk:Ling.Nut2|Nut]] 15:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
#[[User:Samir|Samir]] 19:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Line 256 ⟶ 257:
# I was going to stay out of this completely, but given Skomorokh's, John Vandenberg's, Piotrus's, and Bishonen's supports, I'll support. I'm still unconvinced that the Arbitration Committee isn't a failed experiment, but given the lack of alternatives, I can support it sucking a little less. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 22:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
# This appears to be a reasonable clarification and as noted would have fixed a few past issues rather quicker. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 06:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
# [[User:Ben MacDui|<
# The proposed changes seem okay, but like [[User:MZMcBride]] I am unconvinced that the Arbitration Committee is making a real difference. [[User:Hawkeye7|Hawkeye7]] ([[User talk:Hawkeye7|talk]]) 00:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
# Given the way it's structured, I am unconvinced that the Arbitration Committee ''can'' make a real difference. But it can make incremental improvements, which this is. [[User:Cool Hand Luke|Cool Hand]] ''[[User talk:Cool Hand Luke|Luke]]'' 14:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
# Improvement over current policy. [[User:Heimstern|Heimstern Läufer]] [[User talk:Heimstern|(talk)]] 14:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
# Good enough for government work. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens|talk]]) 12:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
# [[User:Dlohcierekim| <
#Net positive. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] ([[User talk:Jafeluv|talk]]) 16:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
#-- '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 16:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Line 268 ⟶ 269:
# Sure, why not? [[Special:Contributions/24.177.120.138|24.177.120.138]] ([[User talk:24.177.120.138|talk]]) 00:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
# [[User:HominidMachinae|HominidMachinae]] ([[User talk:HominidMachinae|talk]]) 20:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
#Moved from oppose after Roger Davies has pointed out that there is language in the new policy limiting the Commitee's authority to make policy or content decisions. The scope of Committee decisions is still not well delineated and some of my concerns with respect to this matter remain, but on balance the new policy is a substantial improvement. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 14:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
==No, retain the old policy==
Line 279 ⟶ 281:
#:::It certainly should not be the position of the Arbitration Committee to handle legals threats themselves. If its that serious then it should be referred to the general counsel, if its not then it can be handled by the community. Otherwise the committee is putting itself at huge legal risk and quite frankly they are not the legal representatives of the community. I am not saying the arbitration committee should ignore such issues, I'm simply saying that it shouldn't be the committee's responsibility to '''''resolve''''' these issues just simply pass them to the appropriate people. Hell they can be handled by committee members individually since you are all members of the community but it should not under the committees auspice. '''[[User:Seddon|Seddon]]''' <sup>[[User talk:Seddon|talk]]</sup>|<sup>[[wmuk:Main_Page|WikimediaUK]]</sup> 20:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
#:::: This is an old discussion - the bottom line is that the Wikimedia Counsel doesn't exist to handle every query of a real-world nature that passes through Arbcom's inbox. While Arbcom may choose to consult, the cases where they actually need Counsel input are very few. Users worried they are being harassed and wanting advice or whatever assistance the Committee can provide, notable people who engage in socking or other misconduct where delicate handling is best, allegations that need looking into, users who disclose a personal crisis or real-world issue for which they want understanding or a second chance. Arbcom has at times in its 7 year lifespan had to look into all of them. Exactly as Risker says, a lot of things Arbcom sees are serious enough to warrant private resolution by users trusted to keep very personal matters private and balance fairness and project benefit, but which are not "conduct" or "legal"—or even sometimes anything but just sad and human. [[user:FT2|FT2]] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]] | [[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]])</span></sup> 20:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
#: [Update: moved to support, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 14:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)] <s>The word "primarily" in the clause "a final binding decision-maker <u>primarily</u> for serious conduct disputes" means that this policy establishes the Committee as Wikipedia's final binding decision-maker for ''everything else'' as well, at its sole discretion, notably not excluding issues of content or governance. This is an epochal constitutional change that I cannot support. It goes far beyond the Committee's remit as a ''dispute'' settlement body.</s> <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<
#:::Point of information: the existing policy already says "The Committee will primarily investigate interpersonal disputes" and that's the basis of the text in the current draft. There is no change in meaning. [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 19:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
#::::If there is significant concern over this, a minor reword (''To act as a final binding decision-maker for serious disputes primarily related to user conduct ...'') would resolve it. Seems unlikely at this point though. [[user:FT2|FT2]] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]] | [[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]])</span></sup> 20:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
#:::::Roger Davies, but the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|current policy]] makes rather clear that ArbCom is about resolving ''disputes'' rather than about governing Wikipedia. The new version does not; furthermore it omits the provision that "The Committee will not hear disputes where they have not been requested to rule", and does not rule out content decisions. Unlike the old policy, the new wording explicitly empowers the Committee to make final binding decisions about essentially anything on their own initiative – which makes it, in effect, Wikipedia's government. That may not have been the intention, but it's what the proposal says. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<
#:::::: The binding decision language is so heavily qualified that I doubt that the editor on the Clapham Omnibus would consider it authorised ArbCom to govern anything let alone the English Wikipedia. Perhaps more to the point, what makes you think that the community would actually submit to attempts at governance? The torches and pitchforks would be out in no time. [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 14:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
#:::::::Instead of relying on torches and pitchforks as a means of checks and balances, we should write the policy in an unambiguous manner, e.g. as suggested by FT2, to make clear that ArbCom may make binding decisions about conduct disputes, but not about matters that are (a) issues of content or governance or (b) not the subject of serious disputes. I don't see any heavy qualifiers: the policy simply says that ArbCom is ''the'' final binding decision maker of the project, and only very weakly qualifies this by adding that such decisions are "primarily" about conduct disputes. This means ''[[e contrario]]'' that ArbCom is free to make final binding decisions about anything else if they choose to. That's the plain meaning of the text you wrote, and it's unacceptable to me. (Otherwise, by the way, the policy is fine and I could support it if it were not for this severe flaw.) <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<
#:: I also echo this point which is similar in principal to my point. '''[[User:Seddon|Seddon]]''' <sup>[[User talk:Seddon|talk]]</sup>|<sup>[[wmuk:Main_Page|WikimediaUK]]</sup> 19:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
#:::The sense I have from this thread and that on the talk page is that there is little resistance to the idea that a change of this nature would be desirable but that it is "too late". I have more than sufficient trust in the system to accept this and also trust that this small, but potentially important clarification is assumed, and may be added either to this statement or such other related statement(s) as may be expedient at a later date. I will be adding my name to the "yes" list. [[User:Ben MacDui|<
#Disapprove of all this plebiscite business. [[Direct democracy|This isn't Switzerland.]] <font color="#7026DF">╟─[[User:TreasuryTag|Treasury]][[User talk:TreasuryTag|Tag]]►[[Special:Contributions/TreasuryTag|<span style="cursor:help;">assemblyman</span>]]─╢</font> 19:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
#:I disapprove of this being referred to as plebicite business. Comment on the merits or lack of. '''[[User:Seddon|Seddon]]''' <sup>[[User talk:Seddon|talk]]</sup>|<sup>[[wmuk:Main_Page|WikimediaUK]]</sup> 20:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
[[Category:Wikipedia arbitration|
#::{{xt|I disapprove of this being referred to as plebicite business.}} Why? It's officially being termed a "referendum" – now take a guess where our article on [[plebiscite]] redirects to. <font color="#C4112F">╟─[[User:TreasuryTag|Treasury]][[User talk:TreasuryTag|Tag]]►[[Special:Contributions/TreasuryTag|<span style="cursor:help;">CANUKUS</span>]]─╢</font> 20:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
#<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:Pedro|<
#:The clause "..'''''it will take into account, but will not be bound by, the views of the parties to the request and other interested users.'''''" makes me worried a little. I'd rather have Arbcom be impartial to the viewpoints of the parties involved and "other interested users". Unless/until someone attempts to convince me otherwise, I see that this line here will create a world of trouble in the future as people will be pointing to this one line and cry foul, regardless of which way the issue was settled and who it favors. Until this is explained away to me, I'm voting "no".--[[user:White Shadows|<
#:To clarify, the clause states that the Committee will take parties' views into account (meaning that we will read and consider them), but that the ultimate decision will be "at [the Committee's] sole discretion" and that the Committee is "not [...] bound by the views of the parties"; in other words, it allows us to make independent decisions rather than having to follow the desires of the parties. If I'm not mistaken, this is something you agree with? [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] <sup>[[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|[talk]]] [[User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism|[prof]]]</sup> 23:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
#::I'm a big "strict interpretation" kinda of editor when it comes to the role of Arbcom and I hope that this new "charter" will be applied (if it is passed) word for word, nothing more, nothing less. With this in mind, I interpreted it as Arbcom would be free to make decisions based off of the parties' viewpoints. Which would be a disaster in political articles as well as articles that deal with other disputed issues. I do not want Arbcom ruling in a case like this based on the member's own personal options, but rather the arguments and evidence given to them; and I feel that this passage gives them that ability. Perhaps I'm interpreting this differently than others....--[[user:White Shadows|<
#::: The "views" here are those taken into account in considering a request (that's the section it's in). They are the statements people already write - their views on the conduct, policy, and project matters salient to the case and decision, and reasons why it should be accepted or declined. Which indeed are to be "taken into account" –people write statements giving their views and commenting on the significance and background of the issues in the case, ''in order'' to have them taken into account. I don't see Arbcom taking this to mean instead "views on the topic matter of the disputed articles are a factor in whether to accept or decline a case" (!) and "interested" here means the everyday sense of "attention" or "desire to get involved", not "financial or other real-world connection". [[user:FT2|FT2]] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]] | [[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]])</span></sup> 12:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
#::::Alright then. Thank for you taking the time to further explain this passage. I've removed my opposition vote and I'll be supporting the new rules.--[[user:White Shadows|<
# Given the low bar of 100 supports to "ratify", this comment is probably pointless. Nevertheless, I think there is something new in the jurisdiction" section: "The Committee retains jurisdiction over all matters heard by it". The AC exists to resolve disputes that the community cannot. At least in principle, if the community can resolve a dispute, the community ought to be able to remove that dispute from AC's jurisdiction. One could view AC's authority as delegated by the community, but that view appears contrary to the current wording of the "jurisdiction" section. [[User:Gimmetoo|Gimmetoo]] ([[User talk:Gimmetoo|talk]]) 01:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
#::It's not new at all. It merely refers to the ongoing stuff that arises out of a case: amendments, clarifications, enforcement, and so forth, which have always been handled by ArbCom. Traditionally, the committee also lets jurisdiction lapse over time: for example, major resurrections of cases are dealt with as new requests (cf. the four Scientology cases), each need their own community attempts at resolution. [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 13:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Line 324 ⟶ 326:
#: I suspect the details of party criteria, addition and removal would come under "arbitration case [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures|procedures]]" rather than policy, the same way that "4 net supports to accept a case" or "24 hours before opening" or all the other details are dealt with. [[user:FT2|FT2]] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]] | [[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]])</span></sup> 02:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
# Per my comments on talk --[[User:B|B]] ([[User talk:B|talk]]) 23:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
# Fuck no. As someone who was subject to {{User|FT2}}'s secret, ''in camera'', unethical, and irresponsible Arbcom hearings a few years ago, from my point of view, giving ArbCom any powers to do anything in secret is reprehensible. Remember, there was nothing privileged or confidential about me that prompted FT2's inappropriate actions. NOTHING. There are other Arbcom members who have the same moral fiber as FT2, so how can we trust them? Do we have to trust the strength of those Arbcom members like Casliber who actually has backbone? Let's remember there were strong Arbcom members three years ago when FT2 singlehandedly decided to play judge jury and executioner, and from my perspective, there are new FT2's on the Arbcom now. Bring to the open PERIOD. Because as FT2 proved so well, secrecy breeds power hungry behavior. [[User:Orangemarlin|<
#: I make that 6 mentions in as many lines. You might want to remind yourself of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Orangemarlin&diff=223493988&oldid=223198390 the committee's comment at the time] first, and remember I spent most of the rest of that year trying to reform Arbcom's internal procedures to ensure it could never happen again - which is the true test of a regret. The issue here is whether this is a clearer policy and better guidance than the existing 2003/04 policy. This one formally makes private hearings "exceptional" and only in very limited cases (eg privacy, legal, harassment). The old one didn't. This one sets arbitrator conduct standards (which I [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Policy/Draft/Archive 1#Issues oustanding in the draft|requested were strengthened]] in the 1st draft). The old one had none. The committee now has formal [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures|procedures]] to ensure key practices are agreeable and documented. Then it had none. It does still allow for private hearings in rare cases - but I think on reflection you'll agree a case like yours hasn't happened before or since, so clearly a large part of the desired change has happened. The idea got through. [[user:FT2|FT2]] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]] | [[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]])</span></sup> 00:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
#::I don't fucking care what you say, because you can't speak the truth about anything. You were fucking wrong, and you know it. You have the moral fiber of an ant. [[User:Orangemarlin|<
#:::OrangeMarlin, your situation, and the RFC that followed, is one of the main motivators in rewriting this policy. It is one of the "cases" that we kept in our minds as we filled in blanks and closed loopholes and clarified limits. Not a single arbitrator who has sat on the Committee since that event ever wants to see a repeat of it, and committee actions are often delayed to ensure that there is a broadbased agreement before moving forward, with specific limitations (specifically urgent desysops, which are immediately posted and may move to a full case at the request of the admin). There are still some discussions that will take place in private (for example, working with editors who are exhibiting mental health problems that are affecting their work on-wiki), but the editors are involved in the conversations. It is unfortunate that you were not active during the 2+ years that we have been working to improve this policy, as your feedback would definitely have been considered. Nonetheless, the Arbitration Committee is always made up of editors with a range of experience and personality type, and I am sure that all members of the community find some agreeable and others not so much. The key is in ensuring a balance between them, and the membership of the Committee is something that is up to the community to decide. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 01:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
#::::So, why the fuck wasn't FT2 desysopped and thrown off the project? He wasn't. So he knows he can get away with this kind of shit. And so will the next person. There should be NO secrecy unless it's very specifically detailed, because we will get FT2 Part 2, the return of the lust for power. And really, you're going to deal with mental health issues over the internet? Fuck me, I didn't know that Arbcom was a licensed psychiatrist too.[[User:Orangemarlin|<
#:::::The [[#Conduct of arbitrators|conduct of arbitators section]] deals with this sort of thing and introduces a clear route for removal of arbitrators; something missing in the existing policy. [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 05:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
#:::::Nobody is suggesting that ArbCom is moving into the online psychiatry business, but they do have to decide what to do about editors whose contributions are affected by mental health issues - and making everything public in such cases could do quite a bit more harm to the person involved -- [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 11:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Line 339 ⟶ 341:
#::: We do use something similar in case/motion voting to track copy-edits etc. But they're nothing like the complexity of this document. [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 05:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
#I agree with Sandstein and Ajraddatz, this new policy would essentially give ArbCom authority over any issue. ArbCom was intended to resolve disputes, not govern Wikipedia. This new policy is quite wordy, using a large amount of unspecific words, and not clearly establishing boundaries for ArbCom. For example, with this new policy in effect, it would essentially allow ArbCom to use IRC logs and emails as evidence, but only '''''"by prior consent of the Committee and only in exceptional circumstances."''''' "Exceptional circumstances" is not defined, and how would these private logs be verified as genuine? Unlike Wikipedia edits, IRC logs and email messages can be forged. These new additions give ArbCom too much authority over Wikipedia. Therefore, I cannot support the ratification of this new policy. [[User:Alpha Quadrant|<span style="color:#000070; font-family: Times New Roman">''Alpha Quadrant''</span>]] [[User talk:Alpha Quadrant|<span style="color:#00680B; font-family: Times New Roman"><sup>talk</sup></span>]] 04:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
#:I'm sorry you find this wordy. We have all done our best to keep it concise and to the point though with seventy or so editors participating in the various drafts there is inevitably scope for improvement.<p>I've just left some comments in response to your coup d'état fears on the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Update and ratification#Governance|talk page]]. But please remember what the long-established [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy|"What Wikipedia is not" policy]] says: ''Wikipedia is not governed by statute: it is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community ... While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies.'' which runs dead against Sandstein's monolinear interpretation.</p><p> Regarding evidence, there are currently no restrictions of any kind in the current policy on what can be adduced in evidence. ArbCom is well aware of the potential for forgery in IRC logs, emails and so forth - as well as the potential for disclosing intensely personal information - and therefore treats each instance on its merits. This, incidentally, is precisely the reason why editors should not be able to post logs and emails automatically as part of a case and why discretion about public disclosure rests with ArbCom.</p><p>I hope this helps, [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 09:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)</p>
#::Overall, I like this new policy, but a few lines should be reworded so that they are clearer, specifically the multiple uses of "exceptional circumstances" and "primarily". It is significantly better than the previous version, however, the scope of ArbCom is too unspecific in this version. In principle it may be only for resolving conduct disputes, but that is not how the suggested policy reads. I would support if the scope was clarified in the amendment. [[User:Alpha Quadrant|<span style="color:#000070; font-family: Times New Roman">''Alpha Quadrant''</span>]] [[User talk:Alpha Quadrant|<span style="color:#00680B; font-family: Times New Roman"><sup>talk</sup></span>]] 18:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
#:::Mostly "exceptional circumstances" is used here as a synonym for "rarely" and could probably all be expunged without significant change of meaning. From that point of view, it's no big deal either way. [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 06:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Line 353 ⟶ 355:
# I have a principled opposition to this policy, relating to its construction of jusiprudence, jurisdiction, and governance. [[User:Fifelfoo|Fifelfoo]] ([[User talk:Fifelfoo|talk]]) 07:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
# Not that it matters since there are already 100 supporting, but those commenting above summarize my views nicely. -[[User:Atmoz|Atmoz]] ([[User talk:Atmoz|talk]]) 15:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
# Time to write out the "private hearings" provision that allows for closed-door cases without onwiki discussion. This is entirely contradictory to our open-model of governance and ArbCom's high position is no excuse for a run-around of this important feature of our model. If for legal reasons some cases cannot be held in public, then at least ArbCom needs to publicize on-wiki: 1. that an offwiki case is taking place 2. the parties involved and 3. any editor restrictions or policies developed from the case. I cannot support this unless I am certain that the final results of all arbcom decisions, including those decided off-wiki, are logged publicly on Wikipedia (preferably in the same place, such as the ArbCom noticeboard). '''[[User:Themfromspace|<
#: There is though another great principle, that we should do no harm. Please see [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Policy/Update and ratification#Privacy and cases|'''my response on the talk page''']]. [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 22:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
#:<
# Per User:Sandstein. Glad this was drafted, and otherwise entirely support. Is there a reason not to adjust this? [[User:Jd2718|Jd2718]] ([[User talk:Jd2718|talk]]) 02:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
#:There are over 130 people who support the current wording (at least sufficiently to ratify); it would be extremely inappropriate to make what the opposers believe is a substantive change in the document once people have already voted to accept that wording. One does not make a substantive change in the middle of a ratification vote. I trust you realise that the phrase you are objecting to comes directly from the old policy, which you are supporting. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 02:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
#::There appear to have been but 19 supports when Sandstein raised his objection. I wish there had been a pause and correction then, before the next 100 supports came in. I know it's a pain, but the amount of effort already invested + the importance of Arbitration Policy, imo make it worth fixing before adopting. [[User:Jd2718|Jd2718]] ([[User talk:Jd2718|talk]]) 02:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
#:::Sandstein's oppose was available for review by the over 100 editors who supported adoption after he registered his oppose. Stands to reason that they do not share the concern. –[[user:xeno on an iPhone|<
#:::Shame that the policy wasn't made by the community, or else we might not have this problem. [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]]<small> ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]])</small> 02:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
#::::[[Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy_ratification_vote|Original ratification by the community]]. This current proposal has gone through five drafts with active community participation, thousands of edits, and multiple notifications to the community over 2+ years before it got here. It has indeed been developed with a huge amount of community input. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 03:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
#:::::The question: "''Is there a reason not to address this?''" has received responses, but not what I'd hoped for. 1. It's late to make changes. 2. It looks like current policy (iow, nothing is worse than before), but a) why not improve and b) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FPolicy%2FUpdate_and_ratification&action=historysubmit&diff=431885754&oldid=431885723 see Sandstein] for this change in context, and 3. Xeno's [[argument from ignorance|fallacy]] - see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FPolicy%2FUpdate_and_ratification&action=historysubmit&diff=432707838&oldid=432652169 Ben MacDui's comment] for a yes-voter who disagrees; we don't know what the 130 say about this, only that it did not stop them from saying ok. Essentially I got wikipedia responses - steeped in process without mentioning policy. So it goes. [[User:Jd2718|Jd2718]] ([[User talk:Jd2718|talk]]) 13:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
#:::::::What may seem to you as process wonkery by Risker and Xeno is actually an articulation of [[WP:CONSENSUS]], one of our core policies. The thrust is that there is no consensus at all for a unilateral change. [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 13:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
#::::::I note with dismay that my concerns seem to have been well-founded. With respect to a current request for arbitration, three arbitrators so far (Jclemens, Kirill and Newyorkbrad) have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=434038134#Arbitrators.27_opinion_on_hearing_this_matter_.283.2F2.2F2.2F2.29 voted to accept a case] apparently with a view to making a policy and/or content decision, that is, to influence to which extent Wikipedia should cover an internet smear campaign against a living person. That's a textbook content decision that needs to be made by community consensus. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 11:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
#::::::: Not everyone sees things in the such black and white terms nor makes such bold claims based on such slight evidence. What's more, at this stage of a proceeding, likely outcomes are anyone's guess.<p>Perhaps far more to the point, under the existing (old) policy which remains in force until this one is ratified, under the "exception" provision in the scope clause, there is nothing whatsover to prevent ArbCom making a content decision.</p><p>In fact, the protections against this are in the ''new proposed policy'', which says that the [[#Policy and precedent|''arbitration process is not a vehicle for creating new policy by fiat.... The Committee does not rule on content, but may propose means by which community resolution of a content dispute can be facilitated.'']]</p><p>It seems to me that you are criticising the committee for things which are explicitly permissible under the old policy, while simultaneously seeking to block the reforms that would remedy them. [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 13:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)</p>
#::::::::Yes, you're right, the language you refer to does explicitly limit the Committee's authority to make content and policy decisions. In view of this, I can support the updated policy, even though I still believe the "primarily" is confusingly and misleadingly placed. The language does not limit governance decisions (indeed some functions now assumed by the committee, such as assigning advanced permissions, are already of an executive nature), but this is hopefully more of a theoretical concern. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 14:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
#Per Sandstein, and per the continued inclusion of Jimbo as the final appeal, as opposed to the WMF as a whole. And since Roger will undoubtedly respond to this oppose the way he has just about every other: please do not waste my time by creating a false dichotomy. While this new policy improves on the existing one overall, opposing aspects of the new does not constitute a reaffirmation of the old. Given the amount of power ArbCom holds, getting it ''right'' should be held paramount to getting it ''done''. [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 13:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
#[[User:Ruslik0|Ruslik]]_[[User Talk:Ruslik0|<span style="color:red">Zero</span>]] 16:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
| |||