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

Revision as of 16:11, 13 June 2011

Revision as of 23:25, 13 June 2011

Line 128:

=Ratification referendum =

{{archive top|Closed as '''adopted''' by a clear majority of those expressing an opinion, with more than 100 in favour. [[User:Bencherlite|Bencherlite]][[User talk:Bencherlite|<i>^Talk</i>]] 23:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)}}

Please express your preference below by voting in either the [[#Yes|yes]] or [[#No|no]] sections. If you have comments on the policy, please make them at [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Policy/Update and ratification]].

Line 370 ⟶ 371:

#Per Sandstein, and per the continued inclusion of Jimbo as the final appeal, as opposed to the WMF as a whole. And since Roger will undoubtedly respond to this oppose the way he has just about every other: please do not waste my time by creating a false dichotomy. While this new policy improves on the existing one overall, opposing aspects of the new does not constitute a reaffirmation of the old. Given the amount of power ArbCom holds, getting it ''right'' should be held paramount to getting it ''done''. [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 13:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

#[[User:Ruslik0|Ruslik]]_[[User Talk:Ruslik0|<span style="color:red">Zero</span>]] 16:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}