User:Pcap/ArbCom

Looking back over the election records for the past couple of years (2006, 2007), and comparing them to this year's election, I cannot avoid the conclusion that Wikipedia suffers from short electoral memory, probably due to high turnover in the election participants. It is disheartening to observe that last year's hope for change only turns out to be perceived as more of the same every year. A lot of voters and candidates strongly argued for a more effective ArbCom during each election. Ironically, editors that were elected almost unanimously to ArbCom generally fit the same profile: they had a good editing record, but participated in resolving easy to solve disputes, were simply clerking for the committee, or were astute mediators that did not antagonize any vested groups. The electorate somehow expects these fine Wikipedians, once elected, to suddenly turn into superheroes that deliver swift and unambiguous justice in complex cases where a degree of guilt is often found on both sides of a protracted conflict. But the arbitrators that tend to propose drastic measures against editors that enjoy popularity amongst certain groups quickly become very controversial, and lose reelection campaigns by wide margins. Yet the community constantly complains about the ineffectiveness of the committee when the ArbCom only admonishes litigants, and gives vested editors and admins the n-th last chance. Participation in the ArbCom seems to be guaranteed wikipolitical suicide, regardless of the track record on this job. But the show must go on.