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

Sun Mar 6 22:25:53 UTC 2005

AndyL wrote:

>on 3/6/05 6:18 AM, sannse at sannse at tiscali.co.uk wrote:
>  
>
>>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.
>
It also denigrates children, who rarely behave as badly as adults.  
(e.g. sports parents shouting obscenities from the stands)  A comparison 
to a bar fight might have been closer to reality.

>>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.
>
Countersuits are a normal part of the civil judicial process, but not of 
the criminal process.  They provide for the limited right of the 
respondent to raise issues against his accuser.  It does not operate to 
allow the court to initiate new complaints, nor does it allow for third 
party meddling.

Ec