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. --Sh ell 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. Wiki eZach 21:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
Reasons why this is not a good idea...
R adiant _>|< 10:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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. Wiki eZach 20:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
This is actually pretty interesting. -- Mr. Guye ( talk) 02:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
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. --Sh ell 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. Wiki eZach 21:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
Reasons why this is not a good idea...
R adiant _>|< 10:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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. Wiki eZach 20:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
This is actually pretty interesting. -- Mr. Guye ( talk) 02:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)