<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/1.0.1">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<U>NOTE: I AM CROSSPOSTING THIS TO THE WIKILEGAL LIST,</U>
<BR>
<U>SO PLEASE EDIT THE LISTS LINE TO THE APPROPRIATE</U>
<BR>
<U>RECIPIENTS.</U>
<BR>
<BR>
On Mon, 2004-01-05 at 10:56, A [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
<PRE><FONT SIZE="3"><<</FONT><FONT SIZE="3">I am requesting arbitration at [[DNA]]. I have</FONT>
<FONT SIZE="3">attempted to submit that DNA is a form of [[nucleic</FONT>
<FONT SIZE="3">acid]]. [[User:Peak]] (working in conjunction with an</FONT>
<FONT SIZE="3">anon IP) has made it clear to me that he thinks I am a</FONT>
<FONT SIZE="3">vandal (thus, mediation is not appropriate; since,</FONT>
<FONT SIZE="3">discussion is impossible).</FONT><FONT SIZE="3">>></FONT></PRE>
<FONT SIZE="3"></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<FONT SIZE="3"><B><TT>Respectfully, I think in this situation, discussion is imperative.</FONT></B></TT>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="3"><B><TT></FONT></B></TT>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="3"><B><TT>By speech and action, you should make it clear that Peak and his </FONT></B></TT>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="3"><B><TT>(putative) anonymous friend are incorrect in their characterisation</FONT></B></TT>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="3"><B><TT>of you.</FONT></B></TT>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="3"><B><TT></FONT></B></TT>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="3"><B><TT>(more about the possible role of mediation below)</FONT></B></TT>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="3"><B><TT></FONT></B></TT>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<PRE><FONT SIZE="3"></FONT>
<FONT SIZE="3"><<</FONT><FONT SIZE="3">I request that the arbitration committee determine</FONT>
<FONT SIZE="3">whether, or not, DNA is a nucleic acid.</FONT><FONT SIZE="3">>></FONT></PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<FONT SIZE="3"><B><TT>It is unclear whether we are going to allow either the mediation</FONT></B></TT>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="3"><B><TT>or the arbitration process stray into making determinations on </FONT></B></TT>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="3"><B><TT>questions of fact (personally I think it would be a serious</FONT></B></TT>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="3"><B><TT>over-reach of authority and compounding of "hats" which might</FONT></B></TT>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="3"><B><TT>cause severe difficulties to the credibility of either process).</FONT></B></TT>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="3"><B><TT></FONT></B></TT>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="3"><B><TT>If that is decided to be outside our remit, perhaps the best you </FONT></B></TT>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="3"><B><TT>could hope for is that a mediator would try to get Peek and/or</FONT></B></TT>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="3"><B><TT>the anonymous editor to confront your views, and try to help</FONT></B></TT>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="3"><B><TT>all parties to find some useful mode to discuss the matter </FONT></B></TT>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="3"><B><TT>between each other, either within the mediation process or </FONT></B></TT>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="3"><B><TT>subsequent to it, without taking a position in any way, other </FONT></B></TT>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="3"><B><TT>than to the effect that discussion should take place and</FONT></B></TT>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="3"><B><TT>perhaps suggesting intermediary discussion points which might help</FONT></B></TT>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="3"><B><TT>to chart where the heart of the disagreement lies.</FONT></B></TT>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="3"><B><TT></FONT></B></TT>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="3"><B><TT>Respectfully,</FONT></B></TT>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<FONT SIZE="3"><B><TT>Jussi-Ville Heiskanen (aka Cimon Avaro),</FONT></B></TT>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="3"><B><U><TT>MEMBER OF THE MEDIATION COMMITTEE</FONT></B></U></TT>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="3"><B><TT></FONT></B></TT>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<FONT SIZE="3"><B>P.S. I hate to keep on harping on this matter, but there is a possibility that a method</FONT></B>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="3"><B>for resolving questions of fact may be needed down the line. The ideal method for</FONT></B>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="3"><B>this is neither arbitration nor mediation, but rather "expert determination". This has</FONT></B>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="3"><B>already been excercised informally in the Florentin Smarandache and Neutrosophy</FONT></B>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="3"><B>case, when a professor from outside Wikipedia was "enticed" to "fix" the problem.</FONT></B>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="3"><B></FONT></B>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="3"><B>Once we get more and more public exposure, it may well turn out that on specific</FONT></B>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="3"><B>tightly defined questions of fact, we may be able to get even notable experts to</FONT></B>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="3"><B>accept commissions to sort things out, in a context of both/all sides of the </FONT></B>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="3"><B>conflict accepting beforehand the expert enlisted makes the final call. There are</FONT></B>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="3"><B>attendant possibilities here, for generating publicity for both Wikipedia and/or the</FONT></B>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="3"><B>expert who accepts the commission (and we may even get a new convert from</FONT></B>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="3"><B>the highest reaches of the particular field :-).</FONT></B>
<BR>
<FONT SIZE="3"><B></FONT></B>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<FONT SIZE="3"><B><TT></FONT></B></TT>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<PRE><FONT SIZE="3"> </FONT></PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<B><TT></B></TT>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>