[WikiEN-l] Yes, A Reincarnation

[Martin Harper]

> The current policy of "ask politely, show evidence,
> consider, block" does not appear to have been followed
> in this case.

Well, certainly it was followed for the JRR account - he was asked, evidence was 
shown, we mulled it over, and then Heph blocked. Perfectly in line with that policy. You 
may have missed it because it took place over several weeks, but I think it was 
exemplary. If anything we perhaps took a little too long mulling over things, perhaps in 
part because we had a red herring about whether "troll" in the username is 
inappropriate.

> Presumption of innocence which is totally forgotten

In the UK, the burden of proof in criminal cases is "innocent until proven guilty", while 
the burden of proof in civil cases is "balance of probabilities", and so forth. Even in the 
real world, the presumption of innocence is hardly a universal, and with good reason.

I guess in deciding the burden of proof, one needs to consider the consequences of 
making a wrong decision, and the ability of an innocent person to show that they are 
innocent. It would be wrong to witch hunt and block on suspicion, but equally it would be 
wrong to require evidence that would satisfy a criminal court. There is a balance to be 
struck here.

> * blocking is done without AC consideration first to the case
> =>consequence number 1 (block) is saying "we do not trust AC to do what 
it should do"

I think our policy on reincarnations is such that the AC doesn't need to consider the 
issue first. I was willing to consider it only because the admins seemed to feel unwilling 
to block without the backup of a specific arbcom ruling - as that no longer is the case, 
our involvement is no longer required, unless Mark and the rest of the community are 
unable to come to an agreement on this.

-Martin