Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Policy/Proposed amendment ratification vote

Don't use just the word Committee in the text, you're referring to two different committees. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:42, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree. Could Arbitration and Mediation please be specified? I mean, I can tell which is meant, but it should be clear. Mackensen (talk) 01:07, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

vote restrictions
The vote restrictions seem rather unfair. I'm sure there are plenty of people who have less than 500 edits who're not sock puppets. Dori | Talk 13:21, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

I concur. These restrictions seem pretty elitist to me- 100 edits would be a better mark. --Librarian Brent 04:58, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree also. I've been around as a contributer since the 1st June and have made 483 edits. There is absolutely no way that I would have done this just to get an additional vote on wikipedia. I think this is part of a more general problem with the voting system in wikipedia. We should standadize the requirements of eligability to vote. I suggest we use a rule of 1 month on wikipedia and over 100 votes. Users should be presumed innocent of sock puppetry until proved guilty. It should also be made clear what is the status of such votes. Recently there was a vote on preliminary deletion which had an overwealming majority voting for it. However no action to set up the purgatory system appears to have been taken. If we have a democracy element to wikipedia then it should be clearly defined and its limitations denoted. I understand that user:Jimbo Wales may want a veto on decisions (or certain foundational issues may need special status) but this ought to be explicitely stated. Barnaby dawson 11:41, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

vote start date
The page doesn't say when the vote started, so we don't know when the vote ends. Can someone rectify this? []

RFC
Does this page still need to be listed on RFC? Maurreen 05:42, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm removing this from RFC. Maurreen 07:07, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Outcome/vote extension
Technically, there is no outcome for this vote, even though it has just closed. As such, I am recommending the vote be extended a further fortnight. Please comment here. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 03:22, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)

Excellent idea, considering the unusually strict (I hope!) conditions on who may vote. Brianjd


 * Hmm. Sounds suitable, I suppose.
 * James F. (talk) 22:52, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Again, the current state of the vote looks as though there will not be 100 votes by the time 03:19 Dec 12 comes about. I would suggest merely closing the vote and waiving the 100 vote requirement at that point in time if we can agree upon doing so. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:21, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
 * Considering how close to 70% the vote is (and that is with several aye-voters objecting to the "snowspinner amendment"), I don't think that's reasonable. Why not split it into separate parts, the non-controversial part will get as close to unanimous support as you'll ever find on Wikipedia, and then we can see if there's support for the controversial bit. --fvw *  14:51, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
 * The vote is at 79.3% support (50 out of 63 votes) at the moment, which I would consider to be consensus in favour of adopting both the amendment and the so-called Snowspinner Amendment. If the vote drops below 70%, then we can adopt the amendment without the Snowspinner Amendment. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 15:41, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
 * I don't think the 13 people who opposed (including myself) would agree to waiving the requirement, with the election so close to the 70% needed to overturn. I've been saying that we should just remove the snowspinner ammendment, and then the ammendments would have overwhelming support.  I even think later on the snowspinner ammendment could be adopted with more clarified language and more support.  But of course I'm apparently in the minority.    – Ram-Man (comment) (talk)   15:54, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * I think we could agree on pulling the Snowspinner amendment and subjecting it to a separate vote with some more input. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 16:14, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
 * I think it would be very wrong to change the rules after the fact by dropping the 100 vote requirement.  There may have been several editors who saw no need to vote no, since it was clear the 100 vote minimum would not be achieved. Paul August 04:19, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * The vote's already been extended once due to a lack of 100 votes. Anyone who wanted to vote no could easily have seen this after the initial two week period has extended. Right now it's a question of whether we simply want to adopt the amendment (with Snowspinner issue to be resolved) or to extend the vote even further so that we can even further demonstrate the massive support of the community for the amendment. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:18, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
 * I chose not to vote no because it was clear to me that the minimum vote requirement would not be met. What's the point of having a vote with rules if you are simply going to change the rules after the fact? This is not the appropriate way to achieve a consensus.Paul August 16:27, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed. According to the initially established rules, the vote failed.  These rules were changed, and an extension was allowed, and the vote still failed.  Now Grunt wants to change the rules again.  This is an absurd subversion of the democratic process and is patently unfair.  ElBenevolente 17:18, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The vote did not fail. According to the rules, there would only be an officially defined outcome if at least 100 votes were cast or if there was less than 70% support at the time the vote closed. Since neither of these criteria were met, no outcome officially occurred; hence the extension of the vote. It is clear in any case that there is overwhelming support for most of the amendment. If we choose to believe that this vote failed, then another vote will undoubtedly be held to adopt the amendment since there is community consensus to adopt it. I am simply trying to save us a lot of trouble by agreeing not to delay our beliefs on technicalities and pedantics. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 19:08, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
 * Even if we call the vote indeterminate, it is completely inappropriate to change the established rules after the fact. The required number of votes was not met, even with a long extension.  A new vote should be held, with the option to vote for the the policy minus the Snowspinner Amendment.  Changing the requirements for approval, over one month after they were set, is not proper. ElBenevolente 20:36, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * This is silly. The vote failed to achieve an outcome of "yes" Paul August 21:30, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * The vote also failed to achieve an outcome of "no", or, indeed, an outcome of any sort. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:44, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
 * Yes. But only an outcome of "yes" changes anything. So I fail to see the importance of the distinction between no outcome and an outcome of "no". Paul August 03:38, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * It means that the amendment was not rejected by the community and therefore is subject to further action. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 04:02, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
 * Yes. I see the distinction, but as I said, I fail to see the importance of the distinction. Even if the amendment had been rejected it would still be "subject to further action". The only important distinction is between a change in policy and no change in policy.  "No outcome" and an "outcome of no" both mean no change in policy. Paul August 04:47, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

This is all absolutely ridiculous; people are seemingly object, ex post facto, that the Arbitration Committee takes non-authoritative evidence into account when looking at cases. As I've said before many times before, this amendment is to bring the policy into line with practice, not to change how the Committee actually operates (which it does under the bounds of common sense &c.).

The "Snowspinner amendment" was his proposed wording of what (it was noted) needed to be said; it is not new.

James F. (talk) 16:34, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * So you're saying the policy should obey the ArbCom instead of the other way 'round? I'm fine with claims that whether or not it's allowed needs to be put in policy explicitly, however claiming the amendment should pass because it's currently happening whether allowed per policy or not is odd reasoning at best. --fvw *  17:17, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
 * If the idea is to make the policy conform to practice why doesn't the policy just say that the ArbCom can do whatever it wants? Paul August 16:13, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous! Drop the "Snowspinner Ammendment" and by my interpretation you will have 60 out of 63 votes in support, or over 95%, which I think is as much of a consensus as we're ever going to get! Of course, after dropping it, we will have to extend the vote. You don't update the policy just to reflect reality, anyway. Brianjd


 * If that is the case, perhaps you should be looking at how the arbcom is run and take into the account that a significant minority is objecting to the use of this so-called non-authoratative evidence and dealing with its use. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:21, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)