A [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote: This is a question of content. Although my non-bio-scientific background would prima facie see your position as stated above to be correct, I think that it would set a dangerous precedent for the arbitration process to be used to determine the truth in a statement of scientific fact. Ec

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 :-).