Wikipedia talk:Supreme Court of Wikipedia

Suggestion

Maybe we should have 4 users who support jimbo, 4 users who don't support jimbo and one wild card judge? We would also have a round of requests for admin aprovals, much like how supreme court judges must pass through a senate vote. It would be very similar to the american system. --Shell 05:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that we should have either nominations, with two-thirds approval of users voting; or a system of the top nine nominees get to go in, with a run-off if tied. WikieZach 21:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

What does this do that ArbComm doesn't?

I don't think we need a new layer ABOVE ArbComm... the WP:AAP seems to be suggesting that if there are additional layers needed, (and it's not clear there are) that they be between regular users and admins, (to relieve the load on admins and the need to make so many admins) or between admins and 'crats (to aid in removing or reviewing admin actions), or that reform of some of the selection or removal processes is needed. Not a layer above what was always supposed to be the layer of last resort. SO I don't see this as a needful thing, sorry. IMHO as a newb, of course. And even if it was, seems to me that since we are in the middle of a changeover in who is on ArbComm, it may be prudent to see how the new body does. I'm somewhat eventualist on this topic I think... YMMV. ++Lar: t/c 06:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• What if the users believe that the arb. com. is biased? This would prove to be a neutral court. --Shell 14:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I see no sign that the selection mechanism would ensure bias removal from this court if it failed to do so with the ArbComm. We live in an imperfect world. The best we can do is choose those that are good at rising above their personal biases, present the information the best we can, and question results (politely). Adding more layers will not magically fix bias. Especially not layers at the top. ++Lar: t/c 20:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if you must...

Reasons why this is not a good idea...

1. It's redundant with the present ArbCom. We don't want people to appeal every single arbcom decision to a "higher court".
2. m:instruction creep.
3. Wikipedia is neither a bureaucracy nor a court of law.
4. It's hard enough already to find twelve arbs, let alone nine supreme justices.
5. ArbCom decisions can already be appealed, either to the Board or to Jimbo.

Radiant_>|< 10:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• This board wouldn't just do mediation, but would decide major wikipedia things, such as: Whether an admin is banning people for no reason, or if two admins keep blocking each other, this court would decide the punishment. There would be only a few appeals from the Arb. Com. WikieZach 13:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing that actions involving banning people, by a single admin, however egregious they might be, fitting "major" by any stretch of the imagination. That sort of stuff should be handled before it even gets to ArbComm if at all possible. "Major" to me means policy things like "can user pages show any POV at all" or "should WP allow fair use images at all, or play it safe and allow only images that are PD worldwide or that are licensed compatibly worldwide" to pick a couple of recent policy questions that strike me as major. And this court isn't the place for those either, those are Board/Jimbo questions, IMHO. This is a solution in search of a problem. IMHO. None of the objections raised have been addressed. Again, IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 20:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, I agree with Wikizach. Also, what if the users believe that the arb. com. is biased? This would prove to be a neutral court. --Shell 14:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• The ArbCom doesn't do mediation at all (that's what the MedCom is for) and is the proper forum for the "major wikipedia things" you mention. And to Shell - what if the users believe the supreme court is biased? If you know how to prove a court to be neutral, please share it with us as we want all committees (and indeed, all admins) to be neutral. Radiant_>|< 14:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• There is no way to ensure nutrality. The US Supreme Court is currently leaning towards the Conservatives/Republicans. If people think that the canidates for justices are too bias, then they just shouldn't vote for them. WikieZach 17:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• And again we ask, how is that any different from the ArbCom? Radiant_>|< 19:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• This would be a second level of appeal from much more qualified users and there would be the chance to present more evidence. --Shell 21:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Name me one user (other than Jimbo) who is "much more qualified" than the ArbCom. Also, if you think there exists more evidence than gets presented in ArbCom cases, then I'm afraid that you really don't know what you're talking about. Before you judge anyone (or any process), walk a mile in their shoes. Radiant_>|< 21:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

As amusing as this seems to me (No offence intended)

Can you imagine? I WILL SUE YOU IN A Court of Law ON SV46.WIKIMEDIA.ORG ? 68.39.174.238 21:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC) PS. Or whatever they call the servers.

The above is not to be taken as a comment against the idea here proposed. 68.39.174.238 21:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The court will not have original jurisdiction, and it would not be like that. It will resolve issues concerning Wikipedia policy, along with making sure that it's goals will be reached through peaceful means.WikieZach 15:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

File:Lady justice1.jpg

Lady Justice

$0.02 from BorgHunter

This seems to me like a duplicate ArbCom. It's also, plain and simple, m:instruction creep. I think this is a very bad idea, and would convolute an already very poor (IMHO) dispute resolution process. Though anyone is free to try to convince me otherwise; I tend to be very open-minded, and were the conditions different, I might like the idea. I don't see the need for it, though. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Redirected

When I first saw this, I mistook it for some kind of silly vandalism and deleted it. I've redirected it to Wikipedia:Arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought about your unilateral action, then decided that it wasn't such a good idea, so I undid your redirect, and marked the proposal as "rejected", since it pretty clearly doesn't have consensus. A redirect, hiding all the content, just seems a bad idea to me. This is a failed proposal, not another name for something else. I suggest you put this up for AfD or MfD (not sure which, actually) if you feel strongly about it. ++Lar: t/c 13:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm seeing this term "unilateral" more and more, as if actions taken by one person were somehow unusual on a wiki! Whatever happend to Be bold? No, I'm fine with the page as it is, or even with "proposed" rather than "rejected". I don't think the idea has been widely enough considered to be labeled as rejected, though I'm certain that if it were the very absurdity of the page as it stands, complete with an outstanding case involving the effective controller and supreme arbiter of Wikipedia and some made-up entity, would lead to its early rejection. I'd be tempted to punt it over to BJAODN but perhaps that would be in poor taste. Presumably somebody thought this was a good idea. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Point well taken. Strike unilateral. I undid what you did (and just as "unilaterally") because I thought it went TOO far too soon. This proposal isn't going anywhere though, because as you say, it's rather a non-starter, and hardly anyone is aware of it. If the people that made it don't participate any more then sure, archive it away sometime soon. Maybe it IS BJAODN fodder... ++Lar: t/c 14:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Rejected vs. proposed

This proposal has no support, no groundswell of people working on it or helping shape it, instead it has a few good people explaining why it just doesn't seem to fit, and a couple of people who haven't answered any of the criticisms offered in a meaningful way.

I see that the policy has been set back to "proposed". What follows is my opinion only... I see no signs of any movement to modify this proposal in a way that would get more people to support it. The way I see it, this page could either stay as a rejected policy and serve as a source of some ideas and discussion, OR it could get reverted back to being just a redirect.

So here you are: I'm going to set this back to "rejected". If it sticks, great. But if it gets set back to proposed again with no futher discussion, no support as to why, no addressing the issues, I'll be falling over myself to beat Tony to turning it into a redirect to the ArbComm oage again. Who am I to do this? Just some newbie. But if you can't even get the newbies to support you, you have a tough row to hoe to get it accepted as policy, IMHO. Hope that helps. (note that I've explained every change I've made on the talk page...) 21:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I have been sick lately, not being able to reply. I am now feeling better, and I want to continue discussion. I believe that we should only say that it's rejected after we have debated it to the very last detail.WikieZach 15:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• This is very obviously rejected, per the reactions here, and by the fact that the creator has not explained one iota of how this is different from the ArbCom, hasn't been able to find support from that same ArbCom or other authorities, has found nobody of those people "more fit than the ArbCom" willing to serve on it, etc. Radiant_>|< 14:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

No sign of the objections being addressed

I see a nonination (under the "If you feel that someone has the audacity to become a judge" clause) but no addressing of the fundamental objections to this proposal. Suggest that before people start nominating, they work on getting this proposal to be in a state where it would be widely accepted by the community. (one example, it's not "audacity" that's needed in such a judgeship, it is long experience with policy, tradition, precedent, and the wiki way, a level head, and the respect of the community and support of the board... audacity may actually not be a desirable characteristic!) Consider that in the time this proposal has been afloat, several others have been mooted and have received wide discussion (WP:PROD, WP:COC for example, among others) and support. The lack of discussion here may be a sign that most of the community doesn't even take this proposal seriously enough to want to participate. Sorry, not trying to hurt feelings but that's my opinion (when someone suggests something is WP:BJAODN fodder, that's a very bad sign!). ++Lar: t/c 19:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• I completly agree. At this time I am trying to get more people to help out. WikieZach 19:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Great! But aren't you're the person that, instead of addressing some of the objections here, nominated someone... that was not the best way to move this forward, IMHO. I think you may be missing the point of the objections. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 19:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

power

Where would the "supreme court" get its power to enforce descisions? Kim Bruning 20:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

From admins, Jimbo, ArbCom, and other users and editors. I believe that would all be handeled out if this becomes a policy. WikieZach 20:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You have that backwards. This becomes a policy when all those people actually apply this, not the other way around. So how do you propose doing that? Have you considered it? :-) Kim Bruning 20:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope Jimbo would help do that along with other admins. How does the ArbCom enforce it's rules? WikieZach 02:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested --GraemeL ^(talk) 02:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't be too much different WikieZach 03:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Lets get this project Whipping'

Lets get this project started! I think the Wikipedia Supreme Court (Supreme Court of Wikipedia) should be similar to the real life Supreme Court of the United States. Somehow, we could base this online Supreme Court off of the rules and court guidelines of the real supreme court. Would'nt that be cool? Please reply with suggestions, and please: Lets get this Wikipedia project started again. Thank you!!! CookieMonster755 (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

CookieMonster755 The dream is dead. --Mr. Guye (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Guye, no it's not. CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

YES!!! Another Wiki User the 2nd (talk) 13:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

P. S. I proposed a new idea for it on Wikipedia:Village pump/Proposals Another Wiki User the 2nd (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment

This is actually pretty interesting. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)