User talk:Snowspinner/arbcom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Mediation

"If either says no, however, that should not be a black mark against arbitration in any way"

I don't agree, and this does not seen to be current policy. As an arbitrator would you take policy and precident as the primary determinant behind your descisions, or would personal preference hold a higher position? How do you intend to balance the two? Sam [Spade] 03:41, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The policy says "Where a dispute has not gone through mediation, the arbitrators may refer the dispute to the mediation committee if it believes mediation is likely to help." If a party refuses mediation, then it seems very unlikely that mediation will help. In response to the more broad question, however, as I noted, the principles of Wikipedia are the primary determinant - policy is obviously the main ennumeration of those. Precedent, not so much, because the arbcom has explicitly decided against having binding precedents. So, yes, I would follow policy over personal preference any time I felt the two were in conflict. Snowspinner 13:36, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Policy

Are you of the opinion that the arbitration committe is intended to write policy, or to supercede it in anyway? Sam [Spade] 03:41, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I do think that the arbitration committee's job necessarily entails the interpretation of policy. But that's nothing special - everybody's job entails that, and certainly one factor in any interpretation is how everybody else is interpreting the policy. Certainly the arbitration committee shouldn't be superceding policy in any way. The only exception I could concieve to this is if we had two actively contradictory policies. If a case were referred to the arbcom which two contradictorry policies applied to, I suppose the arbcom would necessarily have to sort that out. However, I see that possibility as highly unlikely, and, if it did occur, my ruling would be to refer to Jimbo with a request for him to alter policy as needed to remove the contradiction. Snowspinner 13:04, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] me

I currently have two requested cases before the arbitration committe. While I don't expect a thorough analysis, and can understand if you refuse to comment on cases not yet concluded, I would of course be interested in your thoughts on these matters. Sam [Spade] 03:41, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In the first case, although I think interpretation of the NPOV policy as it stands is within the scope of the arbcom (Since, technically, the arbcom can mandate changes to articles), I think the arbcom has been very, very wise to stay out of article content disputes, and that the best arbitors of NPOV policy is always going to be community consensus. Thus I probably would have rejected the case on those grounds.

In the second case, it's tough to say, because there wasn't that much evidence presented off the bat. I think I would have attempted to throw to mediation. If mediation were refused, I'd accept. The biggest penalty I'd seriously consider would be three days to either you or AndyL if personal attacks were actually made, with a note to not engage in personal attacks, and to stay cool. That's if personal attacks occurred. If they did not, I'd probably point out again that mediation is a good thing. Snowspinner 13:30, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)