Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Iasson/Proposed decision

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Iasson (talk | contribs) at 11:53, 21 March 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

POLL: What version [1] of arbitration_proposed_decision's [2] voting rules do you prefer?

POLL OPTION:With accurate voting rules. Define what exactly majority means and who is the electorate[3] , also define how long a passed or rejected decision should be valid. Define also accurately whether the votes of the inactives or baned electors should be considered valid ones or not and whether any decision taken based on those votes should remain a valid decision or not.
  1. YES VOTE:Iasson 08:42, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
POLL OPTION: With inaccurate voting rules. Neither majority nor the electorate should be defined accurately, and especially we should not define the rule which determines how long the passed or rejected decision should be valid. We should NOT also define what happens to the votes of the electors that are inactives or baned, neither define wheither any decision based at those inactives or baned votes is still considered to be valid decision or not.
POLL OPTION: Other
POLL OPTION: I dislike this poll
POLL OPTION: Iasson should receive a 24-hour ban for repeatedly vandalizing the proposed decision page. [4] [5] [6]
COMMENT: I thought this was a poll option, if you disagree you may change the prefix to "POLL", instead of "POLL_OPTION". Also if you think your poll is related to my poll (conditional poll), you may leave it here as a branch, otherwise you may create a new poll tree. Iasson 11:38, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  1. YES VOTE: [[User:Scott Burley|User:Scott Burley/sig]] 10:13, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  2. NO VOTE: Iasson 11:51, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)