I think we've always known that every arbitrator participating in every case would eventually become unwieldy. Different options raise different questions about practicality and comfort for the parties. For example, should a decision by a small panel be appealable to the whole Committee? Or should the parties be able to strike an arbitrator on motion? Or should be abandon election and simply select arbitrators at random from the administrators (with the understanding that some might refuse or not work out)?
I think a lot of heat, read emotion, is being generated by the feeling that we have instituted a creeping caste system. You can see this in parties changing their focus from the issues raised by their own behavior to concerns about the arbitration process. The problem for the existing arbitrators is that having been presented with a mess, they must find some remedy that restricts its scope. Which comes down to bans and partial bans and other restrictions on editing.
In many cases users try to solve problems by upping the ante, trying essentially to overwealm, necessarily calling forth some remedy which restricts.
Fred
From: Sj 2.718281828@gmail.com Reply-To: Sj 2.718281828@gmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 08:36:04 -0500 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Arbitration Committee term lengths
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 06:34:11 -0700, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
We can establish several panels, for example of 5 arbitrators each; have cases decided by arbitrators selected by the parties (one party selects one, the other party selects one, the two selected select the third); or establish what amounts to a small claims court. So lots of scalable options.
Sounds great. I had the impression that this was explicitly not desired... +sj+
+sj+ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l