User talk:Geo.plrd/Arbcab

Examiners

How should Examiners be selected? Geo. Talk to me 02:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Coordinators

Are coordinators going to be a good idea?Geo. Talk to me 02:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This is either useless or far too powerful

This could be pulled off in such a way that someone unhappy with the decision may be released from the remedies. The problem there is that nearly nobody is willing to accept Arbcom style remedies, and the people who would are not the people who would ever need to recieve them. Or, it could force people to accept the decision forever, which gives the arbcab members far too much power. Even with some type of appeals process, being banned unjustifiably, as will most certainly happen in these cases, will cause nearly anyone to leave the project, and again, the people who won't will not ever be banned. -Amarkov moo! 03:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Clarification?

I'm sorry, I may be misreading this, but this seems awfully similar to the Arbcom that already exists. It is a third party, its decisions are binding, etc. The only difference seems to be that it would be run by people who aren't on the official arbitration committee. Could you explain again how precisely you see this as fitting in to the dispute resolution landscape of Wikipedia?--Danaman5 07:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell both users would have to agree to undergo Arbcab and would agree to stick to the restitution. BJ^Talk 08:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No way

Tell me why this is a good idea. It seems a bit like an enforcable "power grab". Yuser31415 21:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; no way. I can't see many cases where this would be a solution, instead of a normal WP:3O or mediation, or a normal consensus seeking system on the talk pages (with proposals, straw polls, whatever). This is way too complicated and confusing (binding yet powerless?). On the other hand, if something like this is really needed, it is way too limited in its scope, since third opinion only applies when there are only two parties to a dispute. What will you do when you have 5 people for option A, 3 for option B, and two for option C? Will one ArbCab member then decide once and for all what is the correct solution? Why would his/her opinion have more power than that of other editors? I can imagine that many edit wars could be improved by introducing more participants, thereby establishing a clear consensus: but that would be by the power of numbers, not by the decision of one person. Perhaps I have to propose WP:LEWD, the Lame Edit War Discussions ;-) Fram 08:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Community enforced mediation proposal

How is this proposal different from Wikipedia:Community enforced mediation? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)