John Robinson wrote:
Are you volunteering to be a member of the AC?
No, I am saying that the concept of an AC has been tried, and does not work. I don't consider this to be the fault of the AC or any of the members of it, rather a problem with overall structure, confusion with regard to the amount of authority it holds, etc.
I don't see that much confusion about the amount of authority the arbitration committee holds, unless you mean that it should start engaging in content arbitration as well. Arbitration has resulted in bans ranging anywhere from one day to one year, and while some users have attempted to evade those bans, I think the authority to impose bans is by now generally accepted (albeit with varying degrees of enthusiasm).
I believe the arbitration process does work, or at least can work. I am concerned that things move too slowly, however. If I thought the problem was because of the time needed to discuss and deliberate on a case, I wouldn't complain. I realize that arbitration cases are not going to produce instantaneous results.
But at least on the surface, it certainly appears that some of the arbitrators are not even really participating in the process. When it takes four arbitrators to accept a case, and six to issue a decision, this is a serious problem. The lack of participation may sometimes be due to circumstances beyond their control, and I'm not saying an arbitrator is not allowed to go on vacation. But at some point, if the absence indicates inability to serve, I think a replacement may be necessary. I'm not volunteering to be on the committee either, but all of the arbitrators except one *did* volunteer for the job, and if anyone is unwilling to continue, they should resign, not just stop participating.
3 non-AC member admins to do such a block
This is a good idea, we've had five already in Trollkien's case, for example.
Actually, as to the specific case of JRR Trollkien, I would suggest that we simply require him to explicitly confirm or deny whether he is the banned user 24/142.177.../EntmootsOfTrolls, as is widely suspected. So far, he won't give a straight answer. Given the evidence suggesting this is the same person, I think if he's told that he *must* answer the question, and refuses to, that should be enough proof that this is a reincarnation. (On the other hand, if he admits it, he could be allowed to edit only for the purposes of his arbitration case, if he cares to appeal that ban to the arbitration committee.)
--Michael Snow