This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Maurreen (talk | contribs) at 01:11, 28 August 2005 (→Solutions?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:11, 28 August 2005 by Maurreen (talk | contribs) (→Solutions?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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 .Famekeeper 23:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
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)