Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Policy/Proposed amendment (May 2023): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 21:31, 18 May 2023

Some additional prior procedural discussion can be found at the petition's discussion section and its talk page which may inform the discussion here.

Continuation of "good-standing"/eligibility discussion

When I closed the petition aspect, I was able to just check for site-blocked users (which was done using the normal tool, plus a dozen random checks). However, this non-defined phrase does leave it open for discussion whether IP editors (especially the few with stable IPs and are known as clearly beneficial editors) are valid voters in this process. For the sake of whoever closes this discussion (and potentially future ones), it would be good to have an agreement as to valid/invalid inclusion. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In other places on Wikipedia where such things are quantified, it is usually restricted to experienced editors with usernames. Whether or not that is best here (or best in general), I hold my judgement, but historically, if there is an enforced restriction on participation, at minimum it usually requires an established username. --Jayron 32 12:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is the enfranchisement criteria? Do IP editors get to vote? Can we have the same voter requirements as an arbcom election? Sandizer (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandizer - there was some discussion on the petition talk page and the offshoot is - we have bugger all idea, as the only criterion is "editors in good-standing". Good-standing clearly rules out fully blocked editors. I closed the petition on the basis that any lesser sanction wasn't to be considered, and fortunately didn't have to judge on IP editors. However, a discussion here to resolve the question of IP editors voting would be very useful. It definitely does not require the same voter requirements as an election, as that standard is set by policy which simply doesn't exist with regards to arbpol amendments. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we go with extended-confirmed, that would make it impossible to enfranchise new accounts within 30 days. Sandizer (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:MEAT policy says, "In votes or vote-like discussions, new users may be disregarded or given significantly less weight, especially if there are many of them expressing the same opinion. Their comments may be tagged with a note pointing out that they have made few or no other edits outside of the discussion." That's good enough for me. I don't mind IPs with a consistent history, even if they only edit project pages. I'm worried about how to detect carrier-grade NAT IPs, though. Sandizer (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of this discussion's outcome, I think we should clarify that issue explicitly; as much as I am of the opinion that mandatory registration is inevitable, IPs are still productive editors. Also, perhaps we ought to change the process to have a minimum time window (say, a week) like RfA so that this isn't quite a "race to 100", but that's another topic for another day. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have been concerned about this issue for years but when I've brought it up I have been told (not completely unfairly) that it's not a change worth doing on its own. This is why I really wanted to do it with this change so there would only be 1 ask of the community but ultimately not doing that was the right decision. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Race to 100" feels very much like a today topic to me. Sandizer (talk) 00:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Length of voting duration

There doesn't seem to be any prescribed length of time for voting to stay open. Should we agree now on a reasonable time period, or just say we'll leave it open until it looks like everyone who wants to vote has voted? Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Newyorkbrad - I would be inclined to say we'd treat it like a normal RfC's timing rules, except it has a specific early pass criterion. So 30 days, and if it's not getting votes then it can be closed, or if it is still getting votes, it can stay open for a bit longer? Nosebagbear (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The early pass criterion could be gamed by off-wiki coordination, so I'd recommend the full 30 days. Sandizer (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandizer my concern there is that that criterion is actually in WP:ARBPOL. It has to execute once 100 individuals have supported the proposal, if they constitute a majority. (I, of course, agree that we won't SNOW-close the process). Nosebagbear (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that minimizing the possibility off-wiki gaming by asking proponents to wait 30 days if they happen to reach a majority over 100 is more closely within the spirit of the policy than encouraging such shenanigans by adhering to its weakly drafted and somewhat vague letter across two paragraphs. Sandizer (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has a clear criteria for closing if successful; I would suggest leaving it open until it passes, or it is clear that it won't pass. BilledMammal (talk) 12:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say it has a clear criterion for closing if successful, but there is some ambiguity, which is part of what I'm trying to address at this early stage. It is possible to read the policy as saying the voting closes instantly when the 100th support vote is cast, even if there are 99 opposes, but that doesn't strike me as a reasonable interpretation, and it certainly wouldn't be an uncontroversial one. Worse, if the voting is neck-and-neck as we reach 200 votes cast, that interpretation would suggest that the voting stays open until there is one more support than oppose, and then closes at that instant, a structure that would bias the result. I think the reference to a minimum of 100 votes is better viewed as a quorum requirement (we aren't going to change the Arbitration Policy unless a reasonable number of people care enough to do it) rather than as a closing-time criterion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per NYB above, policy does not actually say "the instant the 100th vote is made, the policy comes into effect". Instead, to me it only says that it cannot come into effect unless that condition is met. Wikipedia policy always defers to avoiding silliness, and under your reading, we could have a situation where the vote was 49-49, and if two supports came in, the vote would be required to close instantly and there could be no further voting; however if the vote was 49-49 and two further oppose votes came in, it would stay open until supports>opposes, and then it would be required to be closed instantly and implemented. Clearly, that's stupid. Instead, I read it to be "closure can come at some undetermined time, so long as there's at least 100 votes". And separately that a simple majority is needed to pass the amendment. If we keep with standard Wikipedia process otherwise, active discussions aren't arbitrarily closed; usually for a discussion of this magnitude, 30 days is a minimum, along with a week or so of being moribund (no significant contributions in a week). that 30 days/1 week no comments rough standard seems reasonable to me.--Jayron 32 12:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a minor note but you seem to have misread the ratification requirements and what NewYorkBrad was saying. What you're talking about could happen if we use a simplistic interpretation but it would be at 99-99 not 49-49. Also you'd only need one vote for support at 99-99 (or 100-100). You'd need 2 votes if it was 99-100 or 98-98/98-99. Nil Einne (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. The point is, we aren't going to play silly games with the numbers; the 100 vote limit (whatever it means) is not a way to shut down an actively-happening discussion early. --Jayron 32 13:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we're being precise the requirement is that amendments follow an identical ratification process to the original referendum that established ARPOL itself. That didn't have a time limit, as far as I can tell. – Joe (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was also not equivalent to a referendum on the community's trust in a single living person. Leaving it open forever seems needlessly cruel to me. Needless because if Wales ever does abuse the power, surely another 100 petitioners will come forward again but much more quickly. Sandizer (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion was open from 31 May 2011 to 13 June 2011. It had a sufficient majority from 2 June 2011, so it could have technically closed within 3 days. 11 additional days were provided for additional votes and discussion. 2-4 weeks seems reasonable to me. Izno (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. This isn't an urgent motion Nosebagbear (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see where we are as the one-week mark approaches and then decide. Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if we need another amendment to formalize amendment ratification votes stay open for a defined time limit (I'd recommend ten days, personally, but 14 would be fine.) Courcelles (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have been concerned about the amendment process for a while including the lack of a minimum time. When I got on the committee I was excited to do something about it, only to be told that it wasn't worth the effort. So fine. There is no minimum amount or maximum amount of time this has to be opened. Instead it is ready to be closed anytime after it gets 100 supports, which it now clearly has. The last time we passed an ARBPOL amendment it was closed the same day it passed 100. I want to change the policy, but until that happens we all shouldn't pretend it says something it doesn't because what it does say isn't the way we want it to work for the present vote. And because the vote percentage has been relatively stable the idea that we should just WP:IAR is harder to justify since making the change arguably is what benefits the encyclopedia not obeying a process that doesn't actually exist. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural discussions moved above

I know I started asking about the time period in this section, but it would it make sense to move the procedural discussions to the talkpage and leave this section for substantive discussion of the proposal? That would be okay with me as long as there is a prominent cross-reference here to the talkpage discussion so that interested editors don't miss it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was my preference - I'd suggest two discussions to start with - timing and eligibility. Happy for you to execute. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear: I have to go offline for a bit; you can feel free to take care of it. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will do! Nosebagbear (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad, Nil Einne, Jayron32, Sandizer, and Joe Roe: I've moved our comments over to the talk page so we don't contaminate the substantive discussion aspect. Hopefully this will keep things clearer, and apologies for any disruption. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: No problem, but FYI your ping didn't work, so @Newyorkbard, Nil Einne, Jayron32, and Sandizer: again. – Joe (talk) 06:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad:, that is! – Joe (talk) 06:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions needed

I forget the process here. Does anyone have a remembrance or recommendation of a previous such proposal which had instructions, which we can reuse by posting to the top here?

Is this an open community discussion? Bluerasberry (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry - it's a straight yes/now vote (as opposed to a !vote) for the primary ratification. Previous methodology seems to suggest no real cap on the length of the reason you give with it, but no indented discussion within the actual vote process. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

👍 Bluerasberry (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Proposed amendment (April 2019), which came from ArbCom instead of a petition, instructed voters, "This amendment to the arbitration policy will enter into force once it receives majority support, with at least one hundred editors voting in favour of adopting it. Until this amendment is ratified, the existing arbitration policy remains in effect." But then again, it passed 113-13, and it's not at all clear that most of the editors voting no understood exactly the end to which they were voting against. Moreover, for the reasons I've stated above, neither the enfranchisement criteria allowing new and IP voters nor the unlimited polling duration are at all appropriate here. Inviting off-wiki coordination from now until eternity to blast yes votes from every IP address available to the Wikipediocrats or whomever is certainly not within the spirit of a mature and responsible ARBPOL. Sandizer (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even though we're treating this as votes and not !votes, I still think this has more of the look and feel of an RFC and less of the look and feel of, say, an ArbCom election, so while a soft time limit (30 days minimum, plus a weekish since the last active votes) is more helpful than a hard limit, which IMHO, is more open to gaming. If one were going to game the vote, vote dumping at the last second before closing (and before the other side knows what is happening) would be a worse example of WP:GAME. Letting the process run to a natural end seems better to me IMHO. --Jayron 32 15:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first ever proposed ARBPOL amendment which allowed for further amendments, made in March 2005 but not included in any subsequent adoption process that I can find, specified that amendment referenda should "continue for at least a fortnight" and "The vote shall be considered passed when at least 100 users have voted, and at least 80% of the votes are in support." Does anyone know why that or any other language pertaining to amendments wasn't included until June 2011? I think it would work just fine here, at 80% or 50%. (I'm guessing it didn't reach 80% in two weeks itself?) Sandizer (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who has access to arbcom records?

Barkeep49 I hadn't planned to vote on this, and I'm still not sure if I will, but you raised an interesting point about Jimmy no longer having access to CU so he would be unable to do his own investigation. What you didn't mention is arbcom records. In the case of a hypothetical future arbcom which ran amok, who would have access to arbcom records, which I guess means arbwiki and the archives of private arbcom mailing lists? Ombuds? WMF Legal? WMF T&S? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment only the 15 elected arbs have access to the mailing lists (-en, -b, -c) and their archives and to arbwiki. The Stewards could directly give someone access to ArbWiki and the WMF IT department could directly give someone access to the lists and/or their archives (as could individual arbs). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stewards can't manage users on the privatewikis such as arbcom-enwiki, a volunteer or staff developer/sysadmin could. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was Jimmy already dropped from the ArbCom mailing list, then? – Joe (talk) 06:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More policy on meta

Just to make sure people are aware, meta:Arbitration Committee#Composition says, On the English Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales has reserve authority to appoint and dismiss committee members, or to disband the committee and force new elections. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is a descriptive rather than policy page and would presumably be updated if we change this policy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Would this particular amendment then strip the last de jure prerogrative(s) Jimbo has over enwiki other than the Founder tag? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy hasn't handled the formal appointment of the election winners as arbitrators in at least ten years, and hasn't appointed or removed any arbitrators outside the election process since 2007. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that the passage was added by Xaosflux in December 2017. isaacl (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Confirm, the notes on that metawiki page are descriptive, not prescriptive. Just a local reference mostly for stewards to look things up if there are permission requests to handle. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something? This referendum is about appeals to Jimmy. ARBPOL says nothing about him appointing or dismissing arbs or calling elections. As far as I can tell those powers were defunct even in 2007. @Xaosflux: where did you get this from? – Joe (talk) 06:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe been a while, I think that may have been summarized from Wikipedia:Role_of_Jimmy_Wales#Arbitration_Committee (which is not a policy). We should certainly update that meta page, after this vote is over would be a good time to level set it. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment process brainstorming

I feel like several other editors have joined me in concern over the potential issues with our current ARBPOL amendment process. And so I have started a brainstorming sandbox (with discussion on the talk page) for interested editors. I'm not sure this would make sense for a seperate process. Instead I think it would be good to have a proposal that can be "attached" the next time there is a substantive ARBPOL change discussed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 *::::Let's see where we are as the one-week mark approaches and then decide. [[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 12:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 *:::::I wonder if we need another amendment to formalize amendment ratification votes stay open for a defined time limit (I'd recommend ten days, personally, but 14 would be fine.) [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] ([[User talk:Courcelles|talk]]) 19:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
-*I have been concerned about the amendment process for a while including the lack of a minimum time. When I got on the committee I was excited to do something about it, only to be told that it wasn't worth the effort. So fine. There is no minimum amount or maximum amount of time this has to be opened. Instead it is ready to be closed anytime after it gets 100 supports, which it now clearly has. The last time we passed an ARBPOL amendment it was [[Special:Diff/892689900|closed the same day]] it passed 100. I want to change the policy, but until that happens we all shouldn't pretend it says something it doesn't because what it does say is absurd to our present situation. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 21:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
+*I have been concerned about the amendment process for a while including the lack of a minimum time. When I got on the committee I was excited to do something about it, only to be told that it wasn't worth the effort. So fine. There is no minimum amount or maximum amount of time this has to be opened. Instead it is ready to be closed anytime after it gets 100 supports, which it now clearly has. The last time we passed an ARBPOL amendment it was [[Special:Diff/892689900|closed the same day]] it passed 100. I want to change the policy, but until that happens we all shouldn't pretend it says something it doesn't because what it does say isn't the way we want it to work for the present vote. And because the vote percentage has been relatively stable the idea that we should just [[WP:IAR]] is harder to justify since making the change arguably is what benefits the encyclopedia not obeying a process that doesn't actually exist. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 21:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 == Procedural discussions moved above ==