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

Thu Mar 3 01:41:47 UTC 2005

zero 0000 wrote:

>The scenario is that A brings an arbitration case
>against B, the committee looks at both sides of
>the dispute, then both A and B get penalties.
>
>This is a clear violation of A's right to due process.
>Nobody should be penalised unless a case is brought
>against them (by the committee if they wish), it passes
>the initial voting as to whether the case should be
>heard, then there is a period of argumentation and
>collection of evidence specifically in relation to that
>person.  This is not true in the case of A, since the
>voting and Evidence page argumentation is primarily
>in relation to B.
>
>If the witnesses in a criminal trial are found to have
>committed crimes themselves, they are sceduled
>for their own trials.  They are not given sentences
>by the original court.  The same principle should
>hold here.
>
>It is not enough to lump A and B together as
>defendants at the beginning, as that can still mean
>that A is put on trial due to the strength of the
>case against B.
>  
>
This isn't the scenario here though---there are no cases against 
specific people, only disputes *between* multiple people.  We require 
that earlier steps of the dispute-resolution process be followed first, 
such as mediation.  If these are unsuccessful, the matter goes to 
arbitration.  The arbitration is thus arbitration of the dispute between 
two people, and is charged with resolving it in some way.

The proper analogy, as the name implies, is to arbitration hearings, not 
to court cases.  It is standard practice in arbitration that sanctions 
may be levied against either or both of the parties to a hearing.

-Mark