[WikiEN-l] ArbCom - too attached to 'equal treatment'?

Sun Mar 6 14:13:21 UTC 2005

on 3/6/05 6:18 AM, sannse at sannse at tiscali.co.uk wrote:

> 
> 
> AndyL wrote:
>> Well if the complainant is acting or has acted badly that should be taken by
>> the ArbComm as a mitigating factor in favour of the respondant when
>> considering the complainant's complaint but no more than that. While I could
>> see an ArbComm suggesting to a respondent (or other participants) that
>> he/she/they file their own arbitration request against the complainant for
>> the ArbComm to take that step unilaterally is improper.
> 
> The court analogy is flawed, we are not a court of law - we're just a
> group of users trying to solve disputes in the most practical and fair
> way for the project.

You haven't expressed why it's flawed, simply that you do not want ArbComm
be compared to a court because you don't want the comparison. I put to you
that the ArbComm should attempt to emulate a court process even if it is
"just a group of users trying to solve disputes" because that is indeed he
most practical and especially the most fair way to do it.

I don't see that it would be that difficult for the ArbComm to do what I am
suggesting above, limit itself to terms of reference set out in the original
complaint, not initiate its own countercomplaints ie be a complaints-driven.
This is not only standard in courts but in quasi-judicial settings, at least
in the Anglo-Saxon world, and ArbComm is nothing if it's not quasi-judicial.

> 
> A much better analogy is of a school headmaster sorting out who did what
> after a playground fight. We want to know who hit first, who hit most,
> and who chucked in a sly boot from the side-lines.

That's quite an insulting example actually and elevates the ArbComm to
headmaster while denigrating the rest of us to the status of children.
School is the closest most of us get to being in a dictatorship - I don't
think that's really a great model to emulate. The difference between the
quasi-judicial model and the "headmaster" model is that the former puts
limits on the ArbComm. While I can see why the ArbComm would prefer to have
no limits and be able to do what they wish, including initiate
investigations, I don't think that would be healthy for Wikipedia.

> 
> There is no way that I would be content to just look at one side of the
> argument, because arguments are rarely one-sided.  That's not
> overstepping our remit - that's part of the fundamental definition of
> arbitration.

No, what ArbComm is doing is leading itself into oblivion because no one is
going to want to initiate a complaint if it puts them at risk of punishment.
"ArbComm chill" if you will. I know that there was a serious hesitation by a
number of people to initiate a complaint against Herschelkrustofsky for that
very reason.

Let each complaint be seperate. You have not explained to me what is wrong
with expecting the respondant or third parties who have issues with the
complainant to initiate their own seperate complaint. I think once we have
more than one complaint the issue of whether to deal with them jointly or
separately can be dealt with but there's no reason why the ArbComm should
initiate countercomplaints rather than have the impacted parties do it.

> 
> If someone /uninvolved/ brought a dispute to the arbitration committee,
> then I wouldn't see a need to scrutinise their edits.  But if you are
> part of the dispute, then we certainly should look to see if you are
> part of the cause of it.

Again, that should mitigate the ArbComm's decision in regard to the
respondant but should not result in punishment of the complainant unless and
until a separate complaint is filed.

> 
>> I think the ArbComm
>> has rather unilaterally expanded its powers without seeking any sort of
>> consent from the wikicommunity. Is there a space where we can debate and
>> vote upon a resolution re the ArbComm's rules and authority?
> 
> There are the talk pages of [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee]] and
> [[Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration]], but I'm a bit concerned that the
> discussion may get lost there.  Perhaps we need a page specifically for
> discussing how the arbitration committee works?  In particular, I'm
> interested in hearing more about the suggestion that we are /making/
> policy - it's important to me that we don't do that, so I'd like to hear
> more about it is people think we are doing so (I don't keep up with this
> list fully - I'd prefer the discussion to be on Wikipedia)
> 
> --sannse
> 