I did, of course, mean that only administrators at 30 November should be able to stand for election. The point being that the community has already said it is willing to put an amount of trust in those elected as administrators. By publicising such a fact well in advance, those wishing to be arbitrator candidates who aren't admins will have time enough to apply for the role. It's an idea to weed out clearly unsuitable candidates as I find it inconceivable that the community would be willing to trust someone as an arbitrator but not as an admin. There are all sorts of admins too - many of which probably wouldn't make good arbitrators - but at least such a requirement would remove the trolls from the election.
The idea of having 24 arbitrators of whom only 7 hear each case is designed to lighten the workload and mean not all active arbitrators have to wade through every single case. I'd be interested to hear from current arbitrators as to whether lessening their individual load in such a way would interest them. (Of course, it is predicated on being able to find 24 willing volunteers!)
Jon
Fred Bauder wrote:
It is not. Although all current Arbitrators happen to be.
Fred
On Jul 11, 2005, at 8:21 PM, Kelly Martin wrote:
On 7/11/05, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
"Only Wikipedians on the English Wikipedia that are _Administrators_ as at 30 November are eligible for the year end elections..."
I wasn't aware that there was a requirement that arbitrators be administrators.
Kelly _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PCcalling worldwide with voicemail