Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Policy/Procedure for changing this policy - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Policy

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Barberio (talk | contribs) at 22:14, 28 September 2008 (Turning this into a statement by Grunt.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:14, 28 September 2008 by Barberio (talk | contribs) (Turning this into a statement by Grunt.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

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, this resulted in a series of suggested policy changes, and it is expected that these changes will be voted on for ratification during the 2008 Arbitration Committee Elections. This may become an accepted method of amendment of the Arbitration Policy by the community.

The 2008 process 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, and production of actionable suggested policy changes as appropriate from those statements.
  • Submission of those policy changes to the community for ratification at the next round of Arbitration Committee Elections.