I think we've always known that every arbitrator participating in every case
would eventually become unwieldy. Different options raise different
questions about practicality and comfort for the parties. For example,
should a decision by a small panel be appealable to the whole Committee? Or
should the parties be able to strike an arbitrator on motion? Or should be
abandon election and simply select arbitrators at random from the
administrators (with the understanding that some might refuse or not work
out)?
I think a lot of heat, read emotion, is being generated by the feeling that
we have instituted a creeping caste system. You can see this in parties
changing their focus from the issues raised by their own behavior to
concerns about the arbitration process. The problem for the existing
arbitrators is that having been presented with a mess, they must find some
remedy that restricts its scope. Which comes down to bans and partial bans
and other restrictions on editing.
In many cases users try to solve problems by upping the ante, trying
essentially to overwealm, necessarily calling forth some remedy which
restricts.
Fred
From: Sj <2.718281828(a)gmail.com>
Reply-To: Sj <2.718281828(a)gmail.com>om>, English Wikipedia
<wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 08:36:04 -0500
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Arbitration Committee term lengths
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 06:34:11 -0700, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:
We can establish several panels, for example of 5
arbitrators each; have
cases decided by arbitrators selected by the parties (one party selects one,
the other party selects one, the two selected select the third); or
establish what amounts to a small claims court. So lots of scalable options.
Sounds great. I had the impression that this was explicitly not
desired... +sj+
+sj+
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l