Wikipedia:Arbitration policy ratification vote

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is retained primarily for historical interest. Per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "A historical page is any proposal for which consensus is unclear, where discussion has died out for whatever reason."
If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you should seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

This vote was to ratify the arbitration policy which will now be used as a guide by the Arbitration Committee.

This vote commenced April 2, 2004, continued for an initial period of one week, and as a result the policy went active on April 9, 2004. This is a closed vote. Any proposed amendments or changes to the policy should go through a separate community process.

Note that the wording below is unchanged since that original vote: the line specifying that you must have had an account active prior to March 30, 2004 no longer applies (although the requirement to have made 500 edits still does, to reduce the risk of sock-puppets voting).

View this page at the point the policy went active

Contents

[edit] What is this vote for?

The Arbitration Committee has been functioning for a while now, and has dealt with a number of cases (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration). However, under the terms of an earlier ratification vote, it could only hear emergency cases referred to it by Jimbo Wales.

This vote is to establish the arbitration policy as the document which will guide the committee's workings and (subject to approval by Jimbo) will have the effect of establishing the Arbitration Committee as a fully functioning body, able to hear requests from anyone (not just those cases referred to it by Jimbo).

Please note that this is a simple yes or no vote. If you have comments on the policy, please make them at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration policy comments.

[edit] How will the outcome of the vote be determined?

The vote will close exactly one week after it opens. If at that time, the percentage of all votes for "yes" exceeds 66 percent, then the outcome of the vote is "Yes." If it does not exceed 66 percent, the outcome of the vote is "No."

[edit] What will be the effects of this vote?

If the outcome of the vote is "Yes" then, subject to approval by Jimbo:

  • The Arbitration Committee will be able to consider requests from any user, and take on cases without referral from Jimbo
  • The Arbitration Committee's actions will by guided by the Arbitration Policy
  • The Arbitration Policy may be tweaked as the Committee gains experience and learns better ways of doing things

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

  • The Arbitration Committee will continue to only hear emergency cases referred to it by Jimbo
  • 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

[edit] Who may vote?

If you have had an account since before March 30, 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.

[edit] The vote

Should the Arbitration Committee adopt the arbitration policy as it stands in the edit of 14:15, 30 Mar 2004 with the resulting ability to consider cases requested by anybody and to impose binding solutions to disputes?

Voting closed

[edit] Yes

  1. Fred Bauder 14:44, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Angela 14:49, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Fennec 14:51, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  4. fabiform | talk 15:05, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  5. J-V Heiskanen 15:25, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) Not optimal, but workable.
  6. Michael Snow 16:21, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  7. Jwrosenzweig 16:43, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  8. Eclecticology 17:28, 2004 Apr 2 (UTC) But still room for improvement
  9. Martin 17:38, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  10. the Epopt 18:19, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  11. William M. Connolley 19:30, 2004 Apr 2 (UTC)
  12. sannse (talk) 21:22, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  13. Hephaestos|§ 21:27, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  14. Cyan 22:51, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  15. Stewart Adcock 00:57, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  16. mav 05:39, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  17. Alex S 16:42, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC). But let's not have this be set in stone.
  18. +sj+ 16:41, 2004 Apr 4 (UTC)~. I hope guidelines for changing this policy are determined soon.
  19. Warofdreams 16:50, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC). It's a start.
  20. BCorr|Брайен 23:06, Apr 5, 2004(UTC)
  21. Davidcannon 00:51, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  22. -- uriber 17:19, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  23. Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:08, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC) I support it with the caveat that I'm not entirely sure that the AC actually has the authority to call this vote and adopt said policy.
  24. Tuf-Kat 19:11, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)
  25. Ambivalenthysteria 00:35, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  26. Exploding Boy 15:02, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
  27. Dissident 17:07, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  28. — Jor (Talk) 14:03, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  29. Quadell 00:59, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  30. Conover 21:24, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC) (moved from "other support" by Camembert, as he now has the required 500 edits)
  31. Morwen - Talk 22:53, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  32. David Gerard 23:19, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  33. UninvitedCompany 02:01, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC). I was a member of the committee at the time this vote was taken and declined to vote for that reason. However, since, um, THIS VOTE IS STILL OPEN, I would like to show my support for the committee and its remaining members by voting now.
  34. Erich 12:57, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC), ugly work but gotta be done.
  35. Neutrality 16:15, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
  36. Johnleemk | Talk 13:27, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  37. Infrogmation 05:15, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  38. Bryan 06:21, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  39. Seth Ilys 07:56, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC). The arbcom has proven itself reasonable and there are checks available (such as this vote) it should it become unreasonable and overreach. I'm changing my vote from a year ago from abstain to support. - Seth Ilys 07:56, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  40. Charles Matthews 10:17, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  41. olivier 14:15, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  42. Michael Hardy 22:37, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  43. Jiang 03:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  44. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:50, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  45. Gangulf 06:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  46. Carnildo 08:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  47. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  48. Jayjg (talk) 05:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  49. Tomertalk 06:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC) (any motions on when to close the polls?)

[edit] Other support

  1. Mattworld 00:09, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • For information's sake, not that it seems to make a difference and not indicating in any way that I personally object to Matt's vote, Matt had 486 edits when he made the above vote, which I believe invalidates it according to the policies set for this vote. Jwrosenzweig 00:13, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Also for information's sake: I just estimated that I had 500 edits, I in no way intended to vote without having the required # of edits. Thanks for catching this. -- Mattworld 22:56, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Mattworld's got more than 500 edits now, should his vote be moved up into the main "yes" group? Bryan 06:25, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No

  1. Gentgeen
  2. GrahamN 20:56, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC) Why don't all you people just get on with writing and editing articles, instead of wasting everybody's time with this pseudo-legalistic self-aggrandising toss.
  3. — © Alex756 I object. [other comments copied to talk]
  4. Taku 06:40, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC). Can we give us more time? Why are you in such hurry?
  5. No. Nonsense. RickK 19:11, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  6. Because of the very short timeline used for this, the low participation level and the use of promotion venues for the vote which clearly didn't reach most of the active community, myself included. I'd probably support the policy itself. Jamesday 22:45, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  7. Danny - as discussed on IRC
  8. No, this committee does not seem a good use of time. Mark Richards 00:10, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
  9. H. CHENEY 22:40, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  10. No. Would support a more fleshed out policy, or a more explicitly provisional policy while time is taken. Stirling Newberry 13:48, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  11. Guanaco 01:12, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  12. No. The Arbitation Committee is acting arbitrarily. SEWilco 20:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  13. No. Powertripping is pointless. Klonimus 05:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  14. No. The Arbcom acts in an arbitrary manner and does not even abide by its own policy where recusals and transparency of finding are concerned. Rangerdude 18:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  15. No. --HK 15:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abstain

  1. James F. (talk) 09:41, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC) (I don't feel that it is appropriate to vote on whether I should take on the yoke of power.)
  2. Per James—though I should think it obvious that I do not have serious objections, having consented to being appointed. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Assent

"Le Roy le veult" as they say in England. (See Royal Assent.)

That is to say, I assent to the results of this vote, and give the new arbitration policy my full backing.

--Jimbo

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/b/Wikipedia%7EArbitration_policy_ratification_vote_b5a4.html"