[WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

[charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com]

bbatsell wrote

> If ArbCom really feels  
> that the findings of fact are rock solid, then I think they need to  
> explain why and respond publicly to the numerous complaints raised.

I have had some 'dscussion' of this on my Talk page. Since it instantly seemed to turn into talk about 'mitigation', I wasn't that impressed.
   
> As I've said numerous times, I'm aware of and fully appreciate the  
> amount of private discussion that must have gone into this decision.

Well, Arbitrators are not really in a position to convince others that there is a way of working that does allow the bringing up of doubts and queries. We also cannot really make public the route leading from the facts of the case to the remedies; which is where the main burden of discussion seems actually to lie. If those not on the AC mailing list cannot or will not give us credit for knowing at least as much about the factors involved as anyone else, I doubt arguing about it will do much in that direction. What we are not going to agree to is having other 'trials' of Arbitration cases. Appeal lies to Jimbo - that's it.

As for effects on policy: Arbitration is not meant to affect settled policies at all. Decent arbitration requires the separation of doing what fits a given case, and the setting of precedents: there is therefore no default assumption that the AC operates by precedent. 

> I don't know when I can  
> protect or even unprotect an article anymore.  

The position in general remains for admins as ever was: if you are too involved, get others to help. Page protection is a most sensitive area, because a wiki's charter is to be open.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software 
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information