On Friday 23 January 2004 03:16 pm, Sean Barrett wrote:
A couple of current Jurisdiction issues:
- What sorts of disputes should the arbitration committee hear? Article
disputes? Wikiquette disputes? Copyright/Legal/Election disputes?
I prefer a narrow jurisdiction: I don't want to be asked to decide if Usama bin Laden is a terrorist, or even if DNA is a nucleic acid. Rudeness isn't a crime and I don't think our time should be wasted with "mommy, he called me a Nazi!" or even "mommy, he called himself a Nazi!" whin(g)ing. I can see us arbiting non-obvious copyright and legal questions, but if by "election disputes" you mean "mommy, he voted twice!" I feel that the person who set up the election needs to resolve any conflicts.
If you think that personal attacks on other wikipedians are OK, then please advocate for the "no personal attacks" rule to get repealed.
I advocate the enforcement of the agreed-upon rules that are specified in [[Wikipedia:Policy]], which happens to include [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]. Your characterisation of the desire of wikipedians that personal attacks should halt as 'Mommy, he called me xxx" and "whinging" is both condescending and illogical, given that "no personal attacks" happens to be a wikipedia policy. I have quoted it before, and I shall quote it again (from [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]):
"No personal attacks on the Wikipedia, period. [...] Unlike the other rules, which are community conventions enforced only by our mutual agreement, this one may also be implemented in extreme cases as policy, i.e. grounds for banning that go beyond our traditional "sheer vandalism" threshold."
I agree that arbitration should not involve making decisions about wikipedia content, only the conduct of wikipedians.
- Should we always require mediation, generally prefer mediation (with
exceptions), or not require mediation?
I think that in cases where there is nothing to mediate (eg. the MNH case), there should be no mediation.
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
Best, Sascha Noyes