Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Update and ratification: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 13:55, 13 June 2011

Revision as of 14:23, 13 June 2011

Line 279:

#:::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]]''' ^{[[User talk:Seddon|talk]]}|^{[[wmuk:Main_Page|WikimediaUK]]} 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"&mdash;or even sometimes anything but just sad and human. [[user:FT2|FT2]]&nbsp;^{<span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]])</span>} 20:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

#: [Update: moved to support, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</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|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 19:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

#:::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. &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] ^{[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]} 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]]&nbsp;^{<span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]])</span>} 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|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 20:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

#:::::: 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. &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] ^{[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]} 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|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 06:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

#:: I also echo this point which is similar in principal to my point. '''[[User:Seddon|Seddon]]''' ^{[[User talk:Seddon|talk]]}|^{[[wmuk:Main_Page|WikimediaUK]]} 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|<font color="#6495ED">Ben</font>]] [[User talk:Ben MacDui|<font color="#C154C1">Mac</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Ben MacDui|<font color="#228B22">Dui</font>]] 17:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

#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]]''' ^{[[User talk:Seddon|talk]]}|^{[[wmuk:Main_Page|WikimediaUK]]} 20:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Line 366:

#::::::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|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</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>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>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. &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] ^{[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]} 13:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

#::::::::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|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</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)