[WikiEN-l] Proposed overhaul of elections and arbitration process

Wed Oct 26 04:34:26 UTC 2005

Also posted on the wiki at 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2005 
Please direct comments there.

Several people have indicated that they dislike Jimbo's recent 
intervention in the Arbitration Committee election process. Although the 
alternative plan has not fully taken shape, I share some of the 
concerns. For example, I don't think a situation where Jimbo appoints 
the Arbitration Committee, and the election is simply to ratify these 
appointments, is a good solution. However, I understand the concerns 
about the community's ability to handle this on its own, based in part 
on the last election. I think we need to find a reasonable compromise 
position.

Meanwhile, the arbitration system itself continues to struggle. Too many 
cases are going at once; the arbitrators cannot give them adequate 
attention; the process moves too slowly. There are a number of other 
problems, including arbitrator activity and burnout. I have a plan that 
can address many of these issues. Here's my proposal.

Add a group of users called magistrates as a body below the Arbitration 
Committee. The disputes that currently go into arbitration get handled 
by smaller groups of magistrates and/or arbitrators, instead of going 
before the full body. I would suggest that we keep the four votes to 
accept a case rule, and simply make those four people the panel for that 
case. The full Arbitration Committee can review specific cases when 
appropriate, as a "court of appeal".

Magistrates are appointed directly by Jimbo. Since there is no fixed 
number, the Arbitration Committee (or anyone else) can suggest names, 
and people can volunteer directly to him.

While we get the magistrate system up and running, extend the 
appointments of the arbitrators whose terms expire in December. Hold an 
election in February (shortly after the next fundraising drive, which 
should come in January) to fill these seats instead. The newly elected 
arbitrators begin on March 1, which gives us time to observe the 
magistrates in action, since I imagine a few of them would run for the 
Arbitration Committee.

Arbitrators can be elected from the community at large, not just the 
pool of magistrates. However, many of the best candidates will likely 
have gained experience and proven their ability as magistrates beforehand.

Benefits of this system:
*The community gets to decide which of its members are on the main body, 
which is in most cases the final port of call.
*New magistrates can be added at any time, without having to wait for an 
election cycle.
*Magistrates are not chosen based on unsuitable criteria, such as 
RfA-style "popularity contests".
*Elections to the Arbitration Committee should favor candidates who have 
demonstrated ability (as well as approval from Jimbo).
*Magistrates who "lose" an election for arbitrator can still continue to 
serve.
*Larger pool of people available for any given case.
*Number of magistrates can be scaled upward as community grows. (I think 
we could start with around 20.)
*Decreases the workload for any individual arbitrator/magistrate.
*Reduce burnout accordingly.
*A panel can focus more attention on its specific case.
*Less overworked arbitrators/magistrates may also be able to resolve 
cases more quickly.
*Since not everyone participates in a case, magistrates can voluntarily 
avoid cases in which even a perception might exist that they have a 
personal interest.
*In small panels, reaching any decision requires substantial agreement 
(three out of four).
*Nevertheless, the Arbitration Committee can modify or reverse 
problematic decisions from small panels.
*In cases before the full Arbitration Committee, members of the smaller 
panel can organize and explain the often unwieldy evidence based on 
their previous review.
*For all cases, the pool of magistrates not participating directly is 
still available to handle housekeeping issues that are often neglected 
currently.

For all these reasons and more, I hope we can move forward with this 
proposal. I think this is the best way to balance Jimbo's input with the 
need to develop responsible self-government by the community.

--Michael Snow