From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This poll was closed on 13 April 2006. The consensus of voting community members (85%) is to accept the Arbitration committee as policy for this community.

The ArbCom as defined on WN:ARBCOM is the final step in dispute resolution. The Arbitration Committee is empowered to enforce and interpret site policies and to make decisions binding on all members of the community. The Arbitration Committee does not create policy, they simply interpret it and when necessary direct the community in its application. The poll ends when there is consensus or after a week (April 3, 2006).

If you support the institution of the ArbCom on the English Wikinews, vote yes. If you oppose the ArbCom on principle, vote no. The specific policies of the ArbCom are a separate matter to be discussed with the community and the current elected arbitrators at Wikinews talk:Arbitration Committee.

As with the Arbitration Committee Elections, In order to vote, you need to have been an active user on Wikinews for more than a month, and you must have at least 200 edits.


  1. Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 00:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Eloquence 01:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Borofkin 01:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. StrangerInParadise 02:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Cspurrier 03:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutralizer 05:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Jacques Divol 08:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. -Edbrown05 09:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. -Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 00:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Nyarlathotep 16:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. --elliot_k 17:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. International 18:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


  1. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 00:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    Joann 00:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    Just for point of reference, this account was created exactly 1 minute before the vote was cast. Lyellin 00:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    That makes the vote invalid.--Eloquence 01:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    NB: That vote was cast before the requiment to vote was added, I belive it should be allowed, beacuse of that Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 05:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    The entire poll was a bit disorganized at that point and has changed substantially in wording since that time. If this is to be an authorizing/official poll we simply must set some requirements for suffrage. True, the requirements for voting were added after this user voted, but it is established practice that respondents should be active community members -- we see this in RfAs and DRs. --Chiacomo (talk) 05:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. --Jason Safoutin 02:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


  • M:Voting is Evil --Chiacomo (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Arbcom is evil. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 00:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree with CEO Wikinews Cabal Chiacomo Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 00:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I think this poll is a bit premature -- it's not clear to me that it is needed simply because one user happens to challenge the existence of ArbCom the moment his behavior is to be interpreted by it -- but, for the sake of it, I would like to encourage everyone to either vote honestly, or abstain from voting.--Eloquence 01:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll state here what I posed as a rhetorical question before: ArbCom does have the power to enforce its rulings. In the final analysis, the only issue is whether the Stewards will honor a request from ArbCom to desysop someone who does not comply or otherwise interferes with an ArbCom ruling. Since it is an arbitration board appointed by the community, the Stewards will. Dissenters can then take it up with the Foundation, if desired. I am content to ratify this state of affairs here, though I think it unnecessary. StrangerInParadise 02:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • If you all feel it is unnecessary, then go find something else to do, and let this poll go. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 03:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, MrM. I don't understand your meaning. --Chiacomo (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • How will the precedents set by arbcom be organized? Will we need lawyers and solicitors in the future? --Sfullenwider 03:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
The ArbCom should not be constrained by its own previous decisions. It possibly good practice to review previous decisions and to be consistent and it is probable that the ArbCom will review previous decisions for guidance, but each dispute is different and it's possible that policy could be interpreted differently depending on circumstances. --Chiacomo (talk) 04:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
ya' gotta admit I've got some guts:) Neutralizer 05:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • IMO the ArbCom already has support throughout the community, but if this poll re-enforces that fact and makes other users happy then let's poll - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 00:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Seems to be leeting people talk about stuff. Nyarlathotep 16:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Forcing people into making comments on cases that shouldn't even be accepted is detrimental to our project, and our quality is lacking because of it. Get rid of all this beauraucratic stuff, we don't need it. All we need is the current policy, we don't need a board to decide everything for us. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 17:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Asking the whole communty to become involved in deciding a despute is a distraction and detrimental to the project. -Edbrown05 03:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
True, which is why ArbCom was created. Hopefully, we will not have to go through this exercise with each case, but can refer the next subject of an ArbCom case too it. StrangerInParadise 07:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Whilst any kind of beauraucratic nonsense is to be challenged, at times, communities need to define themselves, how they behave and communicate without hostility. If a wayward member of a group repeatedly refuses to cooperate, is deliberately offensive, dislikes the people xe works and plays with, then perhaps they don't belong in that particlular community. The ability to respect people and behave in a courteous manner is paramount. When someone becomes hostile, offesive and shows complete disregard for the community at large - then clearly they are not welcome. Why would they even want to be there? For this reason I see the Arbcom and its decision-making ability as fair dinkum. --elliot_k 17:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)