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