On 1/8/07, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@hotmail.com wrote:
What I've done here is turn this into a formal debate. While prehaps we can change the terms "plaintiff" and "defendant", the purpose here is to allow everybody to air their concerns and grievences in a public manner that can be reviewed later on by all parties involved, and by those chared with oversight of this project, including other administrators, stewards, and ultimately the WMF board of trustees.
I want to make this perfectly clear right now, I do like the way you are going about this process. This arbitration hearing has been set up in a clear, well-defined way that does give everybody a shot to talk. Barring the use of some specific terminology, I think the process is a good general model to use in the future.
What I don't like, (and what Johnny has been pointing out), is that Johnny himself served as a moderator in this situation (between Darklama and Panic). Panic asked Johnny (and myself) to come in and moderate the discussion. Johnny's decision was that Panic was in the wrong, and his continued bad behavior warranted a block.
What this arbitration hearing is doing, is essentially punishing (or threatening to punish) Johnny for acting as a volunteer moderator for Panic in the first place. Panic didn't like the outcome, but that's tough beans: He asked for a moderator because he wanted to maintain unilateral control over his book, but what he got was a punishment instead. We're creating a precedent where moderation and arbitration can be appealed ad infinitum until everybody gives up or storms off. Somewhere we need to say "A decision has already been made on this issue, and we need to stand by our decisions". Don't think for an instant that if you agree with Johnny and have panic blocked, that he won't appeal higher up the chain (WMF intervention?) to have you de-admined as well. Maybe he won't succeed, but tell me having your adminship on the line over this won't upset you pretty badly as well?
Well, comming in from an entirely ignorant point of view (or nearly ignorant), I would have to say all that this has demonstrated is that somewhere down the road, and probably soon, we must come up with a specific policy about this kind of thing. Something where the entire community can have complete closure, a "final word" of sorts.
The challenge of course is that one or two turns probably ain't gonna do it. So there needs to be a set amount of appeals (even if this set number of appeals is 0, it needs to be set so that everyone is happy, at least so the rules are set down). As said before, I still feel that "community consensus" must be sacrificed if any kind of closure is to be felt.
--Dragontamer