Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Carcharoth/Questions: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Carcharoth (talk | contribs) →Questions from Cunard: skip consensus questions and leave notes |
Carcharoth (talk | contribs) →Questions from Cunard: answer specific question on the EncycloPetey case request |
||
Line 176:
{{admin|EncycloPetey}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=511378498#Motion:_EncycloPetey_desysopped was desysopped] by the Arbitration Committee on 8 September 2012. His last edit was four hours after the arbitration case was filed 29 August 2012. At [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 18#Arbitration motion regarding User:EncycloPetey]], arbitrators {{user|Hersfold}} and {{user|Courcelles}} said they would have supported an admonishment and not a desysop had EncycloPetey acknowledged his errors and pledged not to make those mistakes in the future. But because he was non-responsive for a week, the Arbitration Committee opted to desysop him.
# In [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=511378498#Statement_by_Carcharoth his statement], you mentioned [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Proposed decision#History of the case]] as a similar case where an admin left in the middle of a case. You wrote, "ArbCom is not a court, but being able to build in delays for single-party arbitration cases should not be impossible (this would not apply to multi-party arbitrations about a volatile and current issue)."<p>Describe how would you have built in a delay for EncycloPetey. Would you have supported or opposed the motion that was passed? Would you have proposed a different motion?
#:'''A''': My main objection there was the way that events moved too rapidly at the start of the request. While there is no mechanism that requires those commenting (both arbitrators and non-arbitrators) to wait for the named parties to make a statement, my feeling has increasingly been that there should be. Arbitration case requests are rarely emergencies (in general, arbitration should be about defusing drama, not adding to or encouraging it). There is nothing wrong with waiting for the named parties to a request to make statements, followed by comments from arbitrators and others. Certainly it should be exceedingly rare to ''accept'' a case without having heard from the named parties. As an arbitrator, I would pledge to wait a reasonable amount of time for named parties to make a statement before accepting a case, and only enter a placeholder comment to that effect. I would also urge both fellow arbitrators and non-arbitrators to not rush to judgement. In the event, with EncycloPetey still not responding after a period of time (I note he has still not edited to this day since his goodbye message at WikiProject Plants), ArbCom had little option but to desysop, but I would still have preferred a slightly different formulation that allowed EncycloPetey to return and reopen the case within a period of time (e.g. six months). I believe the above is similar to what I said at the time, but would need to check that. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 15:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
# A general question about desysopping and resysopping: The Arbitration Committee desysops an administrator for misconduct after an arbitration case. After one year of active, unproblematic editing, the former administrator requests the tools back at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment]]. Do you grant this request, or do you decline it and direct the former admin to file a request at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship]]?
| |||