Wikipedia:Arbitration policy ratification vote/archive

I would like to see a vote on what we have here so far, right away, as per the rules of majority and quorum outlined in it. This can all be changed later, but we need to get something in place immediately.

There are pending cases of people who should have been banned two weeks ago, and I'd prefer not to do it myself, but to turn it over to the committee immediately.

You may vote 'no', of course, and if you do, then you can just continue with your deliberations as planned, but in the meantime I'll have to take action to maintain order around here.

We've got very good sysops in more or less open revolt because of a perceived lack of governance, and I need that to stop immediately. -- Jimbo Wales

I think Jimbo's indicated that this vote is for the arbitration committee - other votes very welcome in Talk, however. Martin 22:44, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

See wikipedia:arbitration policy

Yes

(Meaning: we will use the rules of voting procedure to handle the immediate pending cases while we continue our deliberations towards a better system.)

• Yes. -- the Epopt 22:13, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• Yes. Though I'd rather we didn't use the pretentious phrase "grant of certoriari". =] --Delirium 22:54, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Yes Fred Bauder 23:51, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Potentially yes, with one requirement: during this emergency session we only handle cases specifically referred to us by Jimbo (cf the "immediate pending cases" he describes), and do not take general requests. Alternatively, that our Jurisdiction during this emergency session extends only to cases that are emergencies, and that we may delay ruling on cases that we do not consider to be emergencies. Otherwise, I fear that temporary will rapidly become permanent, and that would be a bad thing. Martin 23:16, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• Yes, but only with Martin's changes. --mav
• Yes, but (only) with Martin's emergency-cases-only proviso, and (preferably) using a term other than 'certoriari' - something using the word 'appeal' is more understandable to the lay person -- James F. (talk) 05:24, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• Yes. --Gutza 08:55, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No

(Meaning: we choose not to make decisions at this time, and understand that Jimbo may act while waiting for us.)

Otherwise, no. Jimbo's always been able to act while waiting - he doesn't need our permission. Martin 23:16, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Result

The arbitration committee, consisting of 11 members, was prodded by me to take a vote on a short-term procedure to take care of some pressing matters immmediately, an "emergency session" in Martin's terminology.

I proposed a voting procedure, and with some small modifications, it was approved by them 7-0. The other 4 may still vote, but of course the existence of a majority is sufficient to get us moving right along. --user:Jimbo Wales