On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 02:16:55 UTC, Sean Barrett
<sean(a)epoptic.org> wrote:
> > I question your suitability for the role of arbitrator based on your
> > condescention towards those who want the wikipedia policies enforced.
>
> You told me to work to have the policy changed; I tell you to work to
> have me removed. Jimbo appointed me; convince him to remove me. As
> an alternative, if a simple majority of my fellow arbiters ask me to
> step down, I will.
>
> > The only argument you have given
> > against enforcing such rules is that your time is too precious.
>
> I haven't even given that argument, and I don't intend to give any
> arguments. I simply refuse to be compelled to arbitrate the way you
> think I should.
> ...
I assume that the arbitration process, like any other that I can think of,
will allow some choice to the arbitrees in the selection of arbitrators.
This raises an interesting question: the built-in advantage of people who
have participated in Wikipedia for a while over the newcomer. The former
are likely to know something of the arbitrators, and can protect their
interests by making better-informed judgments.
It would be only fair, though I suppose it would be impractical, to create
profiles of the arbitrators. Then a newbie would know what positions the
various people have taken on the subject of arbitration, and would not
make the mistake of accepting someone who simply refuses to enforce some
published policy of Wikipedia because he doesn't feel like it and nobody
can make him. Just fpr example.