| Revision as of 05:48, 23 March 2006 editMindspillage (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,675 editsm typo fix← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:32, 10 March 2014 edit undoLiz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators760,290 edits new key for Category:Misplaced Pages arbitration archives: "Policy procedure for changing this policy" using HotCat | ||
| (12 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{historical}} | |||
| ''There was at one point a proposal here; it is now at ].'' | ''There was at one point a proposal here; it is now at ].'' | ||
| Arbitration policy |
Arbitration policy has been the jurisdiction of ] and the ]; see ''e.g.'' the ], which states that the "''Arbitration Policy may be tweaked as the Committee gains experience and learns better ways of doing things''". In 2005, then then-Committee member ], indicated that "] has also suggested that Arbitration Policy is not open to amendment by the community." | ||
| ==Previous proposed amendments== | |||
| Several attempts have been made to instigate community interest in amendment of Arbitration policy; see ''e.g.'' | Several attempts have been made to instigate community interest in amendment of Arbitration policy; see ''e.g.'' | ||
| Line 7: | Line 10: | ||
| * ] which, despite its name, was not entirely the same as the original proposed amendment | * ] which, despite its name, was not entirely the same as the original proposed amendment | ||
| A restriction of one hundred community votes was implemented in both votes, but not met by either. | A restriction of one hundred community votes was implemented in both votes, but not met by either. | ||
| ==Current amendment process== | |||
| In 2008, a wide ranging ] was undertaken which resulted in a series of suggested policy changes. Some members of the community were developing a proposal to vote on ratifying these changes during the ]. | |||
| The 2008 process had worked as follows, | |||
| * A Request for Comments submitted to ], to discuss problems and propose solutions in the standard RfC manner of individuals making statements that others can list their support or opposition to. | |||
| * Consensus editing of a summary of the statements that had clear majority support by participants in the RfC, and production of actionable suggested policy changes as appropriate from those statements. | |||
| * Discussion of the submission of those policy changes to the community for ratification at the next round of Arbitration Committee Elections and/or other approaches, ongoing at ]. | |||
| * A request has been posted on ] to ask for guidance from the current Arbitration Committee as to how in their opinion the process of changing arbitration policy could develop. There is discussion to what extent the Committee's opinion on this is determinative. | |||
| Voting on these changes was postponed at the urging of the Arbitration Committee, in preference of allowing the committee to provide a new arbitration policy they felt would address concerns raised. This process was still on-going in Janurary 2009 after having stalled in October of 2008. | |||
| ] | |||
Latest revision as of 14:32, 10 March 2014
 | This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
There was at one point a proposal here; it is now at /Old proposal.
Arbitration policy has been the jurisdiction of Jimbo Wales and the Arbitration Committee; see e.g. the arbitration policy ratification vote, which states that the "Arbitration Policy may be tweaked as the Committee gains experience and learns better ways of doing things". In 2005, then then-Committee member Grunt, indicated that "Jimbo Wales has also suggested that Arbitration Policy is not open to amendment by the community." from March 2005
Previous proposed amendments
Several attempts have been made to instigate community interest in amendment of Arbitration policy; see e.g.
- Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy/Proposed amendment and its failed ratification vote
- Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy/Proposed amendment revote which, despite its name, was not entirely the same as the original proposed amendment
A restriction of one hundred community votes was implemented in both votes, but not met by either.
Current amendment process
In 2008, a wide ranging Request for Comments on the Arbitration system was undertaken which resulted in a series of suggested policy changes. Some members of the community were developing a proposal to vote on ratifying these changes during the 2008 Arbitration Committee Elections.
The 2008 process had worked as follows,
- A Request for Comments submitted to Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment, to discuss problems and propose solutions in the standard RfC manner of individuals making statements that others can list their support or opposition to.
- Consensus editing of a summary of the statements that had clear majority support by participants in the RfC, and production of actionable suggested policy changes as appropriate from those statements.
- Discussion of the submission of those policy changes to the community for ratification at the next round of Arbitration Committee Elections and/or other approaches, ongoing at the relevant talk page.
- A request has been posted on RFAR to ask for guidance from the current Arbitration Committee as to how in their opinion the process of changing arbitration policy could develop. There is discussion to what extent the Committee's opinion on this is determinative.
Voting on these changes was postponed at the urging of the Arbitration Committee, in preference of allowing the committee to provide a new arbitration policy they felt would address concerns raised. This process was still on-going in Janurary 2009 after having stalled in October of 2008.
Categories: