Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Update and ratification: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 359:
#: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 Policy, imo make it worth fixing before adopting. [[User:Jd2718|Jd2718]] ([[User talk:Jd2718|talk]]) 02:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
#:::Sandstein's oppose was available for review by the over 100 editors who supported adoption after he registered his oppose. Stands to reason that they do not share the concern. –[[user:xeno on an iPhone|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 04:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
#:::Shame that the policy wasn't made by the community, or else we might not have this problem. [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]]<small> ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]])</small> 02:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
#::::[[Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy_ratification_vote|Original ratification by the community]]. This current proposal has gone through five drafts with active community participation, thousands of edits, and multiple notifications to the community over 2+ years before it got here. It has indeed been developed with a huge amount of community input. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 03:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
| |||