I think it clear that we should notice in anyone who has become involved.
For example, although we have a warning on each arbitration page (the main
page, not the evidence page) that editing the page enters you into the case,
folks may not read or understand that. So unless the person made the
original complaint or joined in it, if they latter add to the complaint, it
may not be clear to them that they have become a "plaintiff" and subject to
a "counterclaim".
Fred
From: zero 0000 <nought_0000(a)yahoo.com>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 06:45:07 -0800 (PST)
To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom - too attached to 'equal treatment'?
Fred wrote:
A full investigation will improve the quality of
our decisions. A
partial or
poor investigation restricted by artificial rules will reduce their
quality.
It's pretty much summed up by "The more you know..."
I think you are missing the point. I don't see anyone wanting to
limit the AC's ability to look wherever they like. The issue is of
who they have the right to impose penalties on.
Again: if someone is accused by a RfA listing, they have the
opportunity to write in their own defence and to have their
fellows write in their defence. Then the AC imposes a penalty
on a different person who had no such opportunity since they
didn't know it was necessary. It is fundamentally unfair.
The accuser is treated worse than the accused.
The solution: except perhaps in emergencies, the AC should
only be able to impose penalties on someone who has had an
opportunity to mount a defence. There should be a rule on
how much opportunity must be given.
Zero.
__________________________________
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l