uninvited@nerstrand.net wrote:
There is no reason why the AC cannot assign a single arbiter to review a particular case and deal with it. Draw straws, take turns, ask for volunteers -- it doesn't matter. Most cases are clear. In tough cases involving established contributors it may make sense to involve the other arbiters, informally or formally.
There is a very good reason why the Arbitration Committee cannot randomly or otherwise assign a single arbiter for each case. It is that quite a few of the current arbitrators are not at all active participants in the process. Assigning cases to arbitrators who don't deal with the case is sending them to even more of a black hole than the current system.
As Fred Bauder put it: "It is not what you propose or what you vote for that holds things up but failure to either propose or vote." I have posted a summary about the level of participation (or lack thereof) in arbitration cases at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee Based on this, I believe that five of the current arbitrators need to be replaced.
It has been noted that we will soon have another arbitrator election. We need to start preparing and planning for this - I think it would be best to hold the election during the first half of December, rather than waiting until the second half when many people will be preoccupied with holidays and vacations. If so, we should probably publicize it very soon so that people can consider whether to run and declare their candidacies.
Our two recently elected arbitrators seem to have taken their responsibility to their "constituency" seriously and proven to be quite active participants in the arbitration process. I strongly encourage those arbitrators whose terms expire at the end of the year to stand for re-election. In addition, I think we need to open the election to include the positions of the five arbitrators I mentioned.
--Michael Snow
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 22:22:38 -0800, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
Our two recently elected arbitrators seem to have taken their responsibility to their "constituency" seriously and proven to be quite active participants in the arbitration process. I strongly encourage those arbitrators whose terms expire at the end of the year to stand for re-election. In addition, I think we need to open the election to include the positions of the five arbitrators I mentioned.
I just want to second this. I'm sure they were already planning to, but if not, I strongly encourage both Raul and JW to run again, and congratulate them on the job they've done so far.
-- ambi
Is there any means for doing this with otherwise inactive administrators? I ask, because there's two arbitrators on Michael's list who are clearly inactive, having participated very little in recent months - and furthermore, aren't up for re-election.
-- ambi
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 22:22:38 -0800, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
uninvited@nerstrand.net wrote:
In addition, I think we need to open the election to
include the positions of the five arbitrators I mentioned.
We need to be careful to not open more postions than there are reasonably well qualified candidates (of whom I count you as one). Some of the candidates in the last election seemed much more suited for the role of defendant than arbitrator.
Fred
From: Rebecca misfitgirl@gmail.com Reply-To: Rebecca misfitgirl@gmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 18:07:42 +1100 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Broken dispute resolution mechanisms
Is there any means for doing this with otherwise inactive administrators? I ask, because there's two arbitrators on Michael's list who are clearly inactive, having participated very little in recent months - and furthermore, aren't up for re-election.
-- ambi
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 22:22:38 -0800, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
uninvited@nerstrand.net wrote:
In addition, I think we need to open the election to
include the positions of the five arbitrators I mentioned.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
We need to be careful to not open more postions than there are reasonably well qualified candidates (of whom I count you as one). Some of the candidates in the last election seemed much more suited for the role of defendant than arbitrator.
Just as in real life, heh-heh. We really need the Daily Show correspondents to go out and interview our ArbCom candidates!
Stan
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
We need to be careful to not open more postions than there are reasonably well qualified candidates (of whom I count you as one). Some of the candidates in the last election seemed much more suited for the role of defendant than arbitrator.
I agree with this completely. Therefore votes against candidates should also be allowed - only the top candidates with a net positive vote will be elected (5 options would be given, from strongly approve to strongly disapprove). If that means that some seats remain empty, then so be it.
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com
I don't think mav's idea is a bad one, if a little negative. It's certainly a possibility.
However, we could always just try and convince better candidates...The Committee to Conscript Michael Snow, anyone?
-- ambi
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 11:30:16 -0800 (PST), Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
We need to be careful to not open more postions than there are reasonably well qualified candidates (of whom I count you as one). Some of the candidates in the last election seemed much more suited for the role of defendant than arbitrator.
I agree with this completely. Therefore votes against candidates should also be allowed - only the top candidates with a net positive vote will be elected (5 options would be given, from strongly approve to strongly disapprove). If that means that some seats remain empty, then so be it.
-- mav
Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l