Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Proposed amendment ratification vote: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:41, 17 November 2004

Revision as of 20:54, 17 November 2004

Line 60:

#[[User:Mirv|—No-One]][[User talk:Mirv| ''Jones'']] [[Special:Emailuser/Mirv|^(m)]] 18:11, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

#[[User:AlexR|AlexR]] 20:19, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

#[[User:Silsor|silsor]] 20:54, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

===No===

Line 66 ⟶ 67:

#: I should point out that whether or not this amendment passes, the Committee is likely to continue to act in the way that it currently does - which includes the use of evidence either less verifiable than Wikipedia edits or out of normal jurisdiction(logs of IRC discussions, emails forwarded, and others) as supplementary evidence. This amendment merely notes that this is current practice. -- [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User_talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 19:52, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

#::The arbitration committee is here to fulfil policy, not write it. They should '''not''' take IRC or e-mail evidence, and if we need to clarify that in this vote, so be it. [[User:Sam Spade|[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004|Vote]] [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2004/Candidate_statements#Sam_Spade|Sam Spade for Arbiter!]]]] 20:41, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

# Am I the only one who can't make head or tail of the "effects" section? I vote '''no''', since given the text above, the exact effects of a "yes" are almost impossible to define, and there is no way to approve of some effects while disapproving of others. [[User:Silsor|silsor]] 08:31, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

#:In my opinion this vote should be nuked, rewritten with English descriptions of the effects, divided into at least two or three sections by number, and voting should take place for each section individually on this page with the same voting rules. [[User:Silsor|silsor]] 08:35, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

#:: If you can't read my attempt at giving it in bullet points, read [[Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Proposed amendment|the actual amendment itself]]. The whole point is that most of the changes are contingent on the rest of the changes, as they alter the overall balance - it's either all or nothing. -- [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User_talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 19:52, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

#Additional amendment to Line 8 [added by Snowspinner] is unnacceptable. [[User:Sam Spade|[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004|Vote]] [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2004/Candidate_statements#Sam_Spade|Sam Spade for Arbiter!]]]] 16:41, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

#: See my response to Shane King. -- [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User_talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 19:52, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)