Just briefly on the issue that Voronwe raised:
I am strongly opposed to allowing a poster to chose their own juror.
Except that as the current system is set, the parties involved don’t pick the jurors; they are invited to put suggestions forward, but the decision as to who to pick lies with the admins/Shirriffs. If I understand correctly, they aren’t obliged to chose the suggested members (though one presumes they’d need good reason to not do so). I can assure you that in the case we’ve had thus far, we chose people we felt were balanced, fair and intelligent, who indeed would in all likelihood have been picked from scratch by the admins if we hadn't been working to the suggestions set forth.
On the subject at hand:
Are we suggesting that a full arbitration be held if a poster is miffed about an edited post?
I wouldn't expect to see a full arbitration swing into being because someone was miffed about a post being edited. In the first instance in any kind of dispute, the onus should be on the people in disagreement to work it out between each other, using the bike racks is necessary. Only if they cannot come to an understanding a way forward from that point, would a more serious process need to be called upon.
However, if it couldn't be resolved and if came to a hearing, then calling upon
two other admins and one jury member of the poster's choice to determine the path forward would be my preferred option. I really don't think the admins have long enough to get
really cliquey, and they would have the background, noted by Prim, of having been following events perhaps more closely than a poster plucked at random. The juror option would give balance (perhaps we ask for a unanimous opinion of the three?).