This page is currently inactive and is retained for
historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, 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
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.
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."
If the outcome of the vote is "Yes" then, subject to approval by Jimbo:
If the outcome of the vote is "No", then:
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.
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?
"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
This page is currently inactive and is retained for
historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, 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
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.
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."
If the outcome of the vote is "Yes" then, subject to approval by Jimbo:
If the outcome of the vote is "No", then:
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.
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?
"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