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.
Zero.
__________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/