Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/Fish and karate/Questions: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Question from Leaky caldron: reply |
|||
Line 99:
|Q=Are there any circumstances where you would think it acceptable to give an editor a fixed term block without telling them why or what you expect them to desist from when they return? (Yes, this is a Fram related question).
|A=Well, in clear and obvious cases of vandalism, hate speech and so on then yes, but that would be an indefinite block and not really what you're asking. A fixed-term block assumes the user is redeemable as the block is in place for a defined period and therefore for a specific reason or reasons, all of which should be intended to a) protect users and/or b) protect the project, and is placed with the intention to engender an improvement in behaviour. With that in mind then yes, I would expect almost all fixed-term blocks, particularly of actual accounts - a short-term dynamic IP etc. may be less requiring of this - to include informing the blocked user why, and what needs to change. Obviously things are at times nuanced and this may not always be appropriate, particularly if the reason for the block is sensitive.}}
===Questions from [[User:Collect|Collect]] ===
# {{ACE Question|Q=Ought Arbitrators who have been personally involved in any way concerning the facts of a case recuse themselves from any related cases? |A=}}
# {{ACE Question|Q= Ought the persons named in a case be given sufficient time to answer charges made by others, rather than have each be given the same time limits? |A=}}
# {{ACE Question|Q= When an arbitrator proffers specific evidence on their own, ought the accused be permitted to actually reply to such "new evidence" as though it were timely presented, with the same time allowed for such a response? |A=}}
| |||