On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 05:44, Erik Moeller wrote: 
With discussion about mediation going on again, off again, maybe we should  
ask ourselves what kind of people we want to do the job, besides Ed who  
regularly reminds us that *he* wants to do it. Seeing that I have a  
reputation for spreading peace and justice on Wikipedia even among morons  
and pathological liars, I think I am well qualified to lay out the  
criteria needed for achieving the ultimate WikiHarmony. My initial thought  
was to kick out all the Republicans, but I'm not sure if Jimbo would  
authorize a vote on that.

So who is qualified to mediate in disputes? I think the following  
attributes are crucial:
- mostly refrains from editing controversial articles because they seek  
harmony or just want to get work done
- is patient and willing to listen, but also wants to make decisions
- keeps strong personal opinions and beliefs mostly to themselves
- uses clear, non-offensive language (this rules out using a Perl script)
- treats each act of mediation as a new one, i.e. forgives and forgets

I Don't think there are really that many crucial attributes for either mediators or arbitrators. The crucial thing is that we have a wide variety of them. The disputants should have as much liberty to chose who mediates or arbitrates their case as possible. Maybe someone could be disqualified for a demonstrated lack of interpersonal skills or linguistic ability/clarity of thought, but that is just about it. 
Perhaps most importantly, a good mediator is accepted by the entire  
community and has Jimbo's stamp of approval on his forehead in biblical  
fashion.
Could not agree more with the above. Except that the only thing that should cause disapproval is abuse of "mediator" or "arbitrator" status. Jimbo should definitely support most strongly all mediators and arbitrators even when they fail.

However, even though the process should be confidential, an abusive mediator or arbitrator should be referrable to Jimbo, or even the whole community in extreme cases of authority overreach. We don't need a "star chamber".

The rest of your post has been replied to in depth by others, and I certainly have nothing new to add, but to say that Voting in arbitrators or mediators is a bad idea. Those who have the argument, choose who they want between them, and the pool of possible arbitrators or mediators should be as diverse as possible, and definitely not a popularity contest.

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen (aka Cimon Avaro)