Hi all, I think it's important to get some discussion started on the way the arbitrators will be chosen at the end of this year, as Jimbo Wales has recently altered the elections page[1], saying that this year there will be a new system. As he hasn't decided, it's our responsibility as Wikipedians to help pick the best arbitrators with the best possible system. Currently his idea is on a appointments and confirmation procedure, roughly equivalent to the process that judges become United States Supreme Court members - i.e., Jimbo Wales picks a number of Wikipedians and they go through for a confirmation vote from the community. This obviously differs greatly from the previous system, where candidates put their name forward and any candidate willing to stand was added to the 'ballot paper' (similar to an election in most democratic countries). This idea has already come in for some criticism[2], such as Geni suggesting it would be easier to make accusations of an "old boy's club", and Michael Snow, Filiocht and jguk mentioning that they would prefer the community to be trusted to make the right decision. Therefore I propose that we remind ourselves of the advantages and disadvantages that last year's elections showed, debate the merits of the current line of thinking of Jimbo's idea and if possible come up with a new system ensures that the English language Wikipedia is arbitrated by the best Arbitrators who were chosen by the best possible system. Chris 1. http://tinyurl.com/c2ph9 2. http://tinyurl.com/7n88j _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l