[WikiEN-l] Re: Broken dispute resolution mechanisms

[Michael Snow]

uninvited at 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