[WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

[Jim]

On 12/12/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/12/06, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I have reviewed Radiant!'s analysis of the findings.  It independently
> > corroborates much of Durin's analysis posted to the talkpage of
> /Proposed
> > Decision today.  I have also posted my own thoughts to the talkpage of
> > the /Proposed Decision.
>
> Both you and Radiant! limited your comments solely to the few
> citations in the arbcom finding and ignored the evidence page
> (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence
> )
> which has  dozens of examples.


Without opining on the appropriateness of the MONGO case - about which I
know too little - I do want to comment on this.

If the findings of fact do not support the decision then they should change.
The evidence page is for the different parties to present their view, the
findings should then identify that evidence which demonstrates the question
at issue, the principles should be stated, and then the decision should
apply the principles to the findings. It is wasteful and wrong to have to
completely review the evidence as well as the findings. Anyone can propose
findings of fact - they just need to be endorsed by the arbcom - if there
are aggregious examples they should be in the findings not buried on the
evidence page.

My suspicion is that if the alleged evidence is not in the findings because
there is some dispute as to the meaning or intepretation of that evidence.
Thus they were not proposed as a finding since they would likely not gain
the requisite support from members of the arbcom. Which is how it should be.


"Our love may not always be reciprocated, or
even appreciated, but love is never wasted"
- Neal A Maxwell-