[WikiEN-l] Improving ArbCom's lot medium-term

[Michael Turley]

On 7/11/05, Jon <thagudearbh at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> It seems the ArbCom is in freefall - only 6 of the 12 still active. Can't say I'm surprised - I'm more surprised we found 12 volunteers to wade through the detritus that it RfAr for no pay! All I can say is that their efforts are appreciated.
> 
> Clearly something needs to be done to help the matter. I understand the remaining ArbCom members and Jimbo are discussing with others whether they would take on the role in the short term. But what can be done going forward to the end of year elections?
> 
> I don't want comments on the details (which would clearly need to be looked at in due course). But here's an idea that might be more appealing - particularly to those who find themselves on ArbCom (hopefully through volunteering):
> 
> 1. ArbCom to have 24 members (ie enough to cope with absences, resignations, etc)
> 2. 7 Arbitrators to hear each case - the arbitrators to hear each case being decided on a taxi rank system (amongst those making themselves available in any given week or fortnight)
> 3. The first Arbitrator in the queue will be responsible for writing up the initial findings of fact and proposed decisions (this is both to share the workload, plus to ensure that one arbitrator does not gain undue influence by writing them all - this is not a criticism of Fred, who tends to be the first arbitrator at present to write these - more an acknowledgment that it would be better to get a variety of opinions - clearly if the other arbitrators disagree with the findings and proposed decision, it will be rejected anyway, as is the case now).
> 4. If the number of Arbitrators drops below a certain level - 18 maybe - more Arbitrators are to be co-opted (by three-quarters acceptance by active arbitrators, say) to bring the level up to 21, say.
> 5. Only Wikipedians on the English Wikipedia that are Arbitrators as at 30 November are eligible for the year end elections (to eliminate trolls and WPians that are clearly undesirable as Arbitrators from the election) - maybe a little harsh - but if publicised in advance would allow all interested candidates that aren't admins to apply for adminship.
> 
> Comments?
> 
> Jon (Jguk)


While I agree that the Arbitration Committee probably needs to be
expanded, your point #5 is only going to feed the trolls that say that
administrators are a power clique.  (I assume that "administrator" is
your desired eligibility criteria, as it doesn't quite make sense as
written.)

If you're afraid that an expanded Arbitration Committee will be ruined
by the presence of one or two elected "undesirables", they I don't
think you have enough faith in the rest of the arbitrators, and
probably don't see the value of having a free radical or two in the
mix.  Unless you don't trust the community not to vote for a whole lot
of radical, "undesirable" candidates, I don't think that rule #5 will
help more than it will appear to taint the process.

Personally, I'd rather see a little *more* variety in the Arbitration
Committee, not less (which restriction to administrators would give). 
In fact, I'd support choosing one user at random from a pool of
volunteers to serve on each case.  I am not floating this as a serious
idea, though.

-- 
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused