[WikiEN-l] Re: Arbitration proposals

Tue Nov 9 22:45:37 UTC 2004

Speaking with the benefit of only a few months'
experience in the Fellowship of the Oft-Maligned, I'd
like to share my probably idiosyncratic perspective on
all this.

Arbitration needs fixing, and I like many of the ideas
in the proposals.  I agree with Michael that 12
arbitrators is too many (particularly when many choose
not to participate) -- I like the proposal (from both
mav and Michael, I think) that small committees (of,
say, three) of arbitrators should hear cases.  I think
it would be a much easier task to corral two other
people's attention and focus it on a case, rather than
the huge slate we currently have.  I doubt very much
that the AC's decisions would be substantially
different than they are now.  If we allow small panels
to do this, I would suggest the right of appeal to the
whole AC, however (checks and balances are good, I
think).  If, say, 4 of the 6 arbitrators who didn't
hear the case wish to revisit it, it would be done.  I
think this would be a rarely taken option (I would
have to be quite convinced of trouble to revisit
another arbitration panel's case), but in the case of
a truly unmerited result, I think it offers the
community reasonable recourse.  I hope something like
this proposal is eventually adopted.

On the IRC issue, however, I disagree with the
sentiments I've seen.  I have never used email to
confer with another arbitrator, and would prefer not
ever to do so.  I think that the best strength of
arbitration thus far is its transparency, and I affirm
Woodrow Wilson's principle of "open covenants, openly
arrived at".  I do not use IRC as a matter of course,
and I doubt my current Internet connection would allow
me to participate in an IRC conversation with any
great skill -- the lag time would be significant,
though not entirely insurmountable.  More to the
point, though, I have never seen IRC as a good tool
for reaching important decisions -- it is too quick,
it favors the swift to type, and it speeds people to
rash and unwarranted conclusions.  I believe that
using it for arbitration would lead to speedier
decisions, yes, but also decisions that were less
clear, less well considered, and ultimately much less
fair.  I would not serve on such a committee, so if it
is the community's intention to prusue IRC as the
primary medium of arbitration, I would not stand for
reelection (not that my presence or absence will much
affect the AC, I think).  I'm not using this as a
threat, by the way -- if the community wants it, I
have always been an advocate for consensus and I would
accept it as a part of Wikipedia.  But I would not
want to be a part of such a body -- I envision
frustration, regrets, and ultimately a fundamental
lack of certainty that my decisions had been truly
wise.

I don't think we should be surprised at the scarcity
of candidates.  Given the uncertainty of the AC's
future, I think you'll find it hard to get anyone to
commit to standing for reelection (or consider running
for an initial term).  No one knows what the AC will
look like in January.  I urge that we decide in the
next week to ten days about the future of arbitration,
in order that all potential candidates have time to
consider standing for the position in the full
knowledge of what that position will entail.  I, for
one, will be unable to commit until we know.

Finally, I just want to note to Tim, Mav, Michael, and
all the others discussing the future of arbitration
that I respect their ideas, I appreciate and applaud
their energy, and I don't want my words to keep anyone
from continuing to consider IRC as a possibility.  I
think we should probably consider all possible
avenues, and I'm very pleased that you are.  I just
felt I should say something, and now I've said it. 
Best wishes and happy collaboration to all,

James W. Rosenzweig

__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. 
www.yahoo.com 