User talk:TransporterMan/Sandbox/3

Looks like a good idea. Peter jackson (talk) 11:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks like a well thought out proposal, and I can immediately think of one article that would benefit from a process like this. Thryduulf (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Binding Decisions
I think there should also be a process for obtaining a binding decision, but it should be transparent that the decision is being made by a paid and publicly identified staff adjudicator employed by Wikipedia. I just posted a comment [|on this proposal here.]

Your comments would be appreciated. -- Strider ♫♫ 16:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice start
I think the broad theme is spot on.

I have a number of thoughts about some of the details, but in many cases, they are word smithing. In others, somewhat more substantive, but not fundamentally altering the overall theme. For example, I think some aspects of Arbcom (case acceptance process) can be ported over with only minor changes, but the recusal aspect may be different. While it is not hard to imagine that many arbs will not have direct interaction with parties to a behavior case, it is almost certainly impossible that many content arbs will have no involvement in a content issue. Consequently, I believe we cannot simple port over the recusal rules, we will have to rethink them.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  19:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)