Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Update and ratification: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→No, retain the old policy: fix numbering |
→No, retain the old policy: important, worth correcting |
||
Line 358:
# Per User:Sandstein. Glad this was drafted, and otherwise entirely support. Is there a reason not to adjust this? [[User:Jd2718|Jd2718]] ([[User talk:Jd2718|talk]]) 02:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
#:There are over 130 people who support the current wording (at least sufficiently to ratify); it would be extremely inappropriate to make what the opposers believe is a substantive change in the document once people have already voted to accept that wording. One does not make a substantive change in the middle of a ratification vote. I trust you realise that the phrase you are objecting to comes directly from the old policy, which you are supporting. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 02:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
#::There appear to have been but 19 supports when Sandstein raised his objection. I wish there had been a pause and correction then, before the next 100 supports came in. I know it's a pain, but the amount of effort already invested + the importance of Arbitration, imo make it worth fixing before adopting. [[User:Jd2718|Jd2718]] ([[User talk:Jd2718|talk]]) 02:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
| |||