Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Carcharoth/Questions: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Carcharoth (talk | contribs) m →Questions from Cunard: add two questions and answer formatting elements |
Carcharoth (talk | contribs) →Questions from Cunard: on desysopping and resysopping |
||
Line 178:
#:'''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]]?
#:'''A''': (I presume the question means desysopped as part of an arbitration case, rather than for misconduct that took place after an arbitration case closed). In general, unless there were exceptional circumstances, the best route to regaining adminship is through [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship]]. However, there are cases where, if the reason for de-adminship involved circumstances that only ArbCom were privy to (or compelling new evidence or changes in circumstances were presented), then Wikipedia might be better served by granting a request made direct to ArbCom. This would be exceedingly rare. This is not an entirely academic question, as it has happened before and such an amendment request was made very recently. See the resysopping request made by Hawkeye7 [[Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement#Amendment_request:_Civility_Enforcement_.28Hawkeye7.29|here]]. As that may come before the new committee, it would be patently wrong to ask any candidate to opine on that, but the comments made there by Newyorkbrad and Silktork are worth reading. It would also be useful if a full list of past desysoppings and resysoppings (including temporary desysoppings) were compiled. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 16:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
<!-- NOTE: The answer (and any subsequent discussion) belongs before in the blank line above this line to preserve the formatting. It should not go after the </li> and </ul> HTML tags. -->
| |||