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