Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Proposed amendment ratification vote

What is this vote for?

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

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

How will the outcome of the vote be determined?

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

What will be the effects of this vote?

Assuming either result is approved by Jimbo:

If the outcome of the vote is "Yes," then...

• ...It is made clear that:
  • ...the Mediation Committee is not subordinate to the Arbitration Committee, and that there exist other parts of the dispute resolution process.
  • ...the Committee accepts any evidence that is shown to it, regardless of its source.
  • ...the Committee has no jurisdiction over the unofficial IRC channels, the mailing lists, or the Board acting in its official capacity.
• ...The requirement for a prospective case otherwise rejected to be kept on Requests for Arbitration for a week is removed.
• ...The manner in which cases are named is made explicit.
• ...The policy is updated to reflect the use of a listing of non-active Arbitrators in calculating the quorum in each vote made.
• ...A recommended manner in which further amendments to the Arbitration policy might be made is suggested.

If the outcome of the vote is "No," then...

• ...The Arbitration Committee will continue to use the Arbitration policy as it now stands
• ...Members of the Committee and the community as a whole will work towards reshaping the Arbitration policy into a form more acceptable to the community at large

Who may vote?

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

The vote

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

Anyone can add or change their vote at any time.

Yes

1. I'm not sure if this gets at the heart of the problems here, but it's a start. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 03:19, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)
2. James F. (talk) 03:21, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
3. What Grunt said. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 03:23, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
4. Yes. Mattworld 03:24, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
5. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 03:24, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
6. Gady 03:43, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
7. Ambi 03:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
8. Whosyourjudas (talk) 04:09, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
9. What Grunt said. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
10. Johnleemk | Talk 15:12, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
11. sannse (talk) 17:11, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
12. Andre (talk) 19:27, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
13. Michael Snow 20:49, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
14. — Matt 16:58, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
15. Josiah 21:31, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
16. Decumanus 07:13, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)
17. Slowking Man 07:30, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
18. JesseW 09:14, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) - seems perfectly fine to me.
19. Viriditas 11:38, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
20. older≠wiser 16:16, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
21. I'm a little uneasy about the 2nd amendment to line 8, but I can't think of a better solution. Jwrosenzweig 16:35, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
22. —No-One Jones ^(m) 18:11, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
23. AlexR 20:19, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No

1. IRC and private emails should be completely in or (preferably) completely out. I support the rest, but unfortunately we're not given a chance to vote on an ammendment by ammendment basis, only as a whole, so I oppose. Shane King 07:32, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

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

2. 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. 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. silsor 08:35, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

   If you can't read my attempt at giving it in bullet points, read 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. -- James F. (talk) 19:52, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

3. Additional amendment to Line 8 [added by Snowspinner] is unnacceptable. [[User:Sam Spade|Vote Sam Spade for Arbiter!]] 16:41, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

   See my response to Shane King. -- James F. (talk) 19:52, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)