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

Mon Mar 7 22:48:55 UTC 2005

zero 0000 wrote:

>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.
>  
>
Turning an acusation around and looking at the activities of the accuser 
does not imply that the accuser would be deprived of the right to defend 
himself.  If the AC determines that the accuser's activities need 
examining they would bring the matter to his attention at that time for 
comment.

Ec