Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Silverback: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Silverback (talk | contribs) |
Silverback (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 14:
If you were arbitrating the case against yourself, how would you have handled the case? What penalties, if any, would you have dealt to yourself and other involved parties? [[User:Ral315|Ral315]] [[User talk:Ral315|(talk)]] 18:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
:I think I would have put myself on a personal attack parole, and a 1R per day rule for a period of time, the 6 months was not unreasonable. The 1 revert per article per week parole seems excessive and unjustified by the "edit warring" allegations. It is far more extreme and limiting of ordinary editing than a 1R parole interpreted in the way that the 3RR rule is would be. Furthermore, the multiday penalties the arbcom recommended, appears to sanction unprecedently severe and unilateral action by admins, as if I no longer merited normal considerations of evidence and fairness. I would have santioned 172 for his abuse of the deletion voting process, putting him on parole for those kinds of interferences in the voting processes, since his abuse was unusual and seminal in this dispute. In practice this would have had no effect on him, unless he felt called upon to abuse the processes again. I would have put csloat on a 1RR per day rule parole on the one article he appears to be territorial about as well as a personal attack parole. And if I were Kerry Martin, I would have recused myself. I also would have apologized to myself on behalf of wikipedia for Redwolf24's actions in prejudging the case, and called him to task, perhaps with a temporary week or two loss of admin privilege, for giving the impression that wikipedia does not respect the usual ethical abhorance of double jeapardy.
:I would have explained all the decisions, citing the evidence and concentrating on seminal events that if handled differently could have avoided all the conflict and waste. In a sense, however, even the hastey, one-sided and excessive final judgement of the ARBCOM has served the purpose of civil disobedience by calling further attention to the need for reform and fairness. Thanks for your question. --[[User:Silverback|Silverback]] 05:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
==Form Question from [[User:Karmafist|karmafist]]==
| |||