Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Delirium raises the "track record" question rather eloquently.
My own view is:
- Trouble caused elsewhere should ALERT US that it might spread here.
- Generally, users should get a clean slate (see AssumeGoodFaith).
So I'd say the committees should avoid bringing up "outside activities" and using them against Wikipedians. No matter how they act elsewhere, as long as they behave themselves here.
I support this view. In many courts the record of previous convictions is not admissible as evidence for establishing current guilt.
If the general population on these other sites are at all like Wikipedians they're probably very argumentative. Thus, to deal with that kind of evidence fairly our arbitrators would need to review the entire argument that took place on the other site. Are the arbitrators willing to wade through this stuff, and are we willing to put them through such an ordeal?
Ec