Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Update and ratification: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 04:49, 12 June 2011

Revision as of 13:38, 12 June 2011

Line 362:

#:::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)

#:::::The question: "''Is there a reason not to address this?''" has received responses, but not what I'd hoped for. 1. It's late to make changes. 2. It looks like current policy (iow, nothing is worse than before), but a) why not improve and b) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FPolicy%2FUpdate_and_ratification&action=historysubmit&diff=431885754&oldid=431885723 see Sandstein] for this change in context, and 3. Xeno's [argument from ignorance|fallacy] - see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FPolicy%2FUpdate_and_ratification&action=historysubmit&diff=432707838&oldid=432652169 Ben MacDui's comment] for a yes-voter who disagrees; we don't know what the 130 say about this, only that it did not stop them from saying ok. Essentially I got wikipedia responses - steeped in process without mentioning policy. So it goes. [[User:Jd2718|Jd2718]] ([[User talk:Jd2718|talk]]) 13:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)