Wikipedia:Arbitration policy ratification vote

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 one week, and "officially" closed April 9, 2004. Further votes and expressions of support or opposition are welcome. view this page at the point the vote was closed

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.

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%, then the outcome of the vote is "Yes". If it does not exceed 66%, the outcome of the vote is "No".

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

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.

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?

Vote closes at 14:44, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC).

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)

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)
2. Conover 21:24, Apr 2, 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 Adam's vote, Adam had 222 edits when he made the above vote, which I believe invalidates it according to the policies set for this vote. Angela, with thanks to Jwrosenzweig for the text :), 13:24, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

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?

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. I'm still not entirely comfortable with private deliberations, but I very much want to see this succeed. Jimbo can't be Wikipedia's "supreme court" forever. - Seth Ilys 15:05, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

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