User talk:Walton One/Constitution of Wikipedia

My take

This is an interesting essay. It's helpful in conceptualizing some of the power structure as an analogy to a three-branch system of government. That does have it's negatives, in that ArbCom is trying to get away from the judicial analogies to make it feel less like a court. Also, most bureaucrat decisions on RFAs/Bs are wholly uncontroversial (but the few that are controversial are very high profile).--Chaser - T 22:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. I do have one comment: you note other dispute resolution methods in the judicial branch, further saying that they aren't the true judiciary functions because they don't issue binding rulings (all correct). Would it be worth comparing it to ADR in real life? Daniel 04:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel means alternative dispute resolution.--Chaser - T 04:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eek, whoops - my bad :) Daniel 04:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the essay to reflect this; I think it's a good point. Mediation and other dispute resolution can also be compared to an out-of-court settlement. Really, they deal with Wikipedia's equivalent of civil law (content disputes between users); the "criminal law" side of things (blocking and other sanctions) is handled jointly by the ArbCom and WP:CSN (the latter could possibly be seen as a form of trial by jury). Walton^One 08:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]