charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"Ron Ritzman" wrote
I would say that if a contributor continues to do "X" after several good faith "please don't do X" requests from reasonable people, then that person is no longer a "good faith contributor" and any of his contributions with "X" in them are not "good faith contributions".
Therefore, Arbcom is not being "unfair" to such a person by ruling against him.
It is rarely so simple.
One of the reasons is that our policies are not drafted by legal professionals. Therefore the assumption that they can be used as the basis of an entirely judicial approach to resolving disputes is flawed from the outset.
This sounds more like an excuse than a reason.
The policies, for most editors, are a rough indication of what Wikipedia expects in the way of behaviour. That's good enough for most editing.
Agreed.
ArbCom cases are not 'everyday situations' (thank God). They cover all possible variations on editing that transgresses or tries to exploit policy. If someone is working with a misconception of what policy means, or is in effect wikilawyering by sailing very close to the wind, there does come a point at which Arbitrators look at the substantive effect of editor behaviour, not the letter of policy.
Rulings can be based on equity, but that's when fairness to the persons is most important, as is giving the person the benefit of the doubt.. Shifting the buoys because you think someone is sailing too close to the wind does not leave an impression of fairness. When justice is done but not seen to be done it leaves the judges undermining their own authority. This is not to say that following the letter of policy is without provlems of its own.
There are problems with activist judges even if sometimes judicial activism is necessary. Generally, I don't believe that Arbcom members should participate in the development of policy; it puts them in a conflict of interest, or in situations where the rules mean exactly where they thought them to mean. I think too that many of our policies are very badly written, and sometimes reflect only thye opiniuons of those who happened to be available to participate at the time. Tiny incremental changes to those policies can easily go by unnoticed.
Ec