| Revision as of 01:11, 28 August 2005 editMaurreen (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers22,724 edits →Solutions?← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:50, 28 August 2005 edit undoRobert McClenon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers197,177 edits remove Famekeeper comment from here to deleted nonsenseNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==Problematical Accused Viewpoint== | |||
| But, it is cleverer than you think , McC: majority opinion rules. Of course it is completely illogical , in fact I assume it is a typo error, asit is so contradictory of sources. | |||
| Other thing is that , well, arbitration doesn't achieve anything, a little mental spank and a few days in the can at best. | |||
| Then, well you get users like me who have a floating IP number. | |||
| I think Jimbo in fact knows all this , and is chuckling , as he is very clever .] 23:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Solutions?== | ==Solutions?== | ||
Revision as of 08:50, 28 August 2005
Solutions?
Robert, I only read part of what you wrote on the main page here, but I agree that things could be improved and that ideally mediation would come before user conduct RFCs.
Maybe we should start Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution reform? Maurreen (talk) 00:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Here are a couple ideas, food for thought:
- Enlarge or otherwise change ArbComm so it can hear more cases more quickly.
- Invent a new designation -- maybe "caseworker". These people would be empowered and possibly have the duty to resolve any disagreements as they see fit. Think of them as combining the functions of a mediator and enforcer. They would need to be approved by at least 90 percent of those voting. Maurreen (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)