Wikipedia talk:Arbitration policy ratification vote/archive

Jimbo, is this vote intended for the community or only arbitration committee members? I can't tell from the way it's worded (perhaps I'm slow today). Jwrosenzweig 21:21, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo has indicated that it's for the arbitration committee to vote. However, I'm sure that we would appreciate your opinions on the matter. Martin 21:52, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Martin. I think that I will leave the meta page for the 11 of you to decide there. If my opinion is at all valuable (and I don't feel it's any more valuable than any other editor of any experience here), I would say that the rules look very good, and that any more time spent in refining them would be unwise: what little gains were made in improving the rules would be outweighed by the loss of continuing to operate without arbitration (it may have already lost us a good editor, in my opinion).  Thanks for letting me know, Jwrosenzweig 22:04, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

(from article)
 * Yes. -- Tannin 22:36, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, so far. One suggestion - I think people should be prohibited from serving on the mediation and arbitration committees simultaniously. Seems like a conflict of interest. &rarr;Raul654 08:31, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Tannin, Jwros, Raul654. :)

Woops! Tannin 22:53, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)