| Revision as of 00:32, 31 March 2005 editGrunt (talk | contribs)8,638 edits putting a chunk of text here to replace the old proposal← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:48, 23 March 2006 edit undoMindspillage (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,675 editsm typo fixNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ''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 is 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''". ] has also suggested that |
Arbitration policy is 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''". ] has also suggested that Arbitration Policy is not open to amendment by the community. | ||
| 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.'' | ||
Revision as of 05:48, 23 March 2006
There was at one point a proposal here; it is now at /Old proposal.
Arbitration policy is 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". Jimbo Wales has also suggested that Arbitration Policy is not open to amendment by the community.
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.