On 10/26/05, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:

Also posted on the wiki at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_Decem... Please direct comments there.

Several people have indicated that they dislike Jimbo's recent intervention in the Arbitration Committee election process. Although the alternative plan has not fully taken shape, I share some of the concerns. For example, I don't think a situation where Jimbo appoints the Arbitration Committee, and the election is simply to ratify these appointments, is a good solution. However, I understand the concerns about the community's ability to handle this on its own, based in part on the last election. I think we need to find a reasonable compromise position.

Meanwhile, the arbitration system itself continues to struggle. Too many cases are going at once; the arbitrators cannot give them adequate attention; the process moves too slowly. There are a number of other problems, including arbitrator activity and burnout. I have a plan that can address many of these issues. Here's my proposal.

Add a group of users called magistrates as a body below the Arbitration Committee. The disputes that currently go into arbitration get handled by smaller groups of magistrates and/or arbitrators, instead of going before the full body. I would suggest that we keep the four votes to accept a case rule, and simply make those four people the panel for that case. The full Arbitration Committee can review specific cases when appropriate, as a "court of appeal".

Magistrates are appointed directly by Jimbo. Since there is no fixed number, the Arbitration Committee (or anyone else) can suggest names, and people can volunteer directly to him.

While we get the magistrate system up and running, extend the appointments of the arbitrators whose terms expire in December. Hold an election in February (shortly after the next fundraising drive, which should come in January) to fill these seats instead. The newly elected arbitrators begin on March 1, which gives us time to observe the magistrates in action, since I imagine a few of them would run for the Arbitration Committee.

Arbitrators can be elected from the community at large, not just the pool of magistrates. However, many of the best candidates will likely have gained experience and proven their ability as magistrates beforehand.

Benefits of this system: *The community gets to decide which of its members are on the main body, which is in most cases the final port of call. *New magistrates can be added at any time, without having to wait for an election cycle. *Magistrates are not chosen based on unsuitable criteria, such as RfA-style "popularity contests". *Elections to the Arbitration Committee should favor candidates who have demonstrated ability (as well as approval from Jimbo). *Magistrates who "lose" an election for arbitrator can still continue to serve. *Larger pool of people available for any given case. *Number of magistrates can be scaled upward as community grows. (I think we could start with around 20.) *Decreases the workload for any individual arbitrator/magistrate. *Reduce burnout accordingly. *A panel can focus more attention on its specific case. *Less overworked arbitrators/magistrates may also be able to resolve cases more quickly. *Since not everyone participates in a case, magistrates can voluntarily avoid cases in which even a perception might exist that they have a personal interest. *In small panels, reaching any decision requires substantial agreement (three out of four). *Nevertheless, the Arbitration Committee can modify or reverse problematic decisions from small panels. *In cases before the full Arbitration Committee, members of the smaller panel can organize and explain the often unwieldy evidence based on their previous review. *For all cases, the pool of magistrates not participating directly is still available to handle housekeeping issues that are often neglected currently.

For all these reasons and more, I hope we can move forward with this proposal. I think this is the best way to balance Jimbo's input with the need to develop responsible self-government by the community.

What I still don't understand is why you propose a very large pool of magistrates instead of a very large pool of arbitrators.

Expanding the arbitrator pool solves the problems, quickly and simply. From the large pool, the arbitrators self-identify as "available" or "unavailable". Where X is an agreed upon odd number, and Y is an agreed upon even number, appeals go to a random bank of X+Y available arbitrators, from whom, after recusals and a random selection of alternates to monitor the case but sit out the ruling, X arbitrators determine the case. If there's case overload, we add more arbitrators to the pool. If there's burnout, we add more arbitrators to the pool.

Choosing any two trusted Wikipedia members, I have yet to see any trusted pair of Wikipedia members where one is so much more qualified than another at dispute resolution that they should serve in an appeal body over the other. If we trust members enough to issue rulings in arbitration matters, that should be the end of it. We've already found that the current arbitration committee is human, and that they learn from their own mistakes as well.

In your vision of things, what's to stop every single arbitration case from being appealed to the "upper" body? Why even have an appeal to anyone other than those who've already become familiar with the issue? What possible grounds for appeal would there be? Why should any user even be given a right to appeal, especially considering that the mission is not to duplicate a court system, but to create an encyclopedia? Why allow arguments to prolong upward in importance, rather than just getting on with getting them behind us?

-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused