I suggest you submit names to Jimbo with a basis for
why you think
they would be a good arbitrator. That is basically all we do. If we
all agree on one person (remember we often disagree) he is likely to
seriously consider the person. If a person is making a lot of trouble
already we are not likely to think they are good candidates, but
personally I am a little concerned that what makes a good arbitrator
is not all that predictable.
By the way, anyone who thinks they can contribute to arbitration is
welcome to make proposal on the /Workshop page of any arbitration
case. I know I'll be looking for talent there. Rumor has it that
there might be a small reward for any of the Wikipedia advocates
should any of their work on /Workshop be used in a decision by the
Arbitration Committee.
Fred
On Oct 25, 2005, at 6:29 PM, Jack Lynch wrote:
I think its pretty obvious most people disagree w
Jimbo's decision.
Allowing current arbiters to be involved in selecting new arbiters
strikes me as a particularly ill omen. Additionally, people like
myself with almost no contact w Jimbo directly have little or no
chance. How does having Jimbo know who you are make one a better
arbiter?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2005
Jack (Sam Spade)
I don't think people should expect a reward for helping
out other than
knowing that they've helped out and possibly earned the thanks of the
arbcom, that being said rewards are always welcome :).
-Jtkiefer