Fred wrote: 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.

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: 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