On 12/12/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@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/Evi... ) 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-