Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Carcharoth/Questions: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Carcharoth (talk | contribs) →Question from Bishonen: update |
Rchard2scout (talk | contribs) m Fix lint errors |
||
| (39 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown) | |||
Line 29:
#:::'''A''': ArbCom should in general only take action if they are asked to do so, and even then they should put the request on hold or reject it as premature if community discussion is still continuing and is not yet deadlocked. ArbCom should certainly never step in uninvited. What this does mean, though, is that those within the editorial community that are aware of issues, and are able to identify when something is not being resolved, have to be more willing to file requests. Don't think that an earlier premature request means a later request will not be accepted. One of the more frustrating things as an arbitrator is seeing deadlocked situations not getting resolved because the community gives up and no-one bothers to file a request (in some cases, this may be because all those involved know they would likely face sanctions). Going back to the first part of the question, appeals of community discussions that result in sanctions should in most cases be initiated by the appellant, but in the vast majority of cases there would be little reason to overturn a community consensus unless it was clearly wrong and an injustice had been done. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 21:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
#::iii) There were a number of controversial motions this year. Please identify a few motions from 2012 that you believe were appropriate (if any), and a few you believe were inappropriate (if any). Discuss why you have reached the judgements that you did.
#:::'''A''': I've looked through the motions listed at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions]] for 2012, and I think the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&oldid=476326420#Motion_.231 Racepacket motion] was handled well. What could have been a tricky situation was handled decisively and firmly, and re-reading it it is clear why the action taken was needed. Similarly, the motion that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&oldid=500808863#Motion_to_remove_administrative_tools_from_User:Carnildo desysopped Carnildo] was handled well, and explained clearly. One
#:d) '''Private information:''' In light of the mailing list leak:
#::i) Do you believe that the Arbitration Committee should keep records that include non-public information, including checkuser data and the real life identities of users, after whatever case or issue that information originally pertained to had been handled by the committee?
Line 56:
#::'''A''': Yes, factionalism does exist. It can be of several sorts. It can be topic-related or interpersonal, and it can develop here on Wikipedia or be imported from outside. In topic areas, factions can develop as editors polarise around positions on the content of articles, either importing existing positions or taking sides in a dispute. If this is limited and resolves peacefully and everyone moves, that can be OK, but if the same groups keep appearing at article after article across a wide area, this can be damaging. Factions can also develop in process areas of the project if impressions of cliques form. Sometimes the only way to dispel that is to bring in new people and/or effect some sort of change. Factions can also develop around individual editors who have become the 'poster child' for some perennial issue. Such conflicts can have elements of interpersonal disputes and are in many ways harder to resolve (ultimately, resolution of interpersonal disputes occur when the editors involved manage to move on from whatever caused the dispute). ArbCom should definitely examine cases where factionalism is alleged, but should try and determine the underlying causes when considering the remedies. Topic bans or interaction bans can help disperse tension, but in some cases factions will reform involving new editors, so longer-term remedies may be needed. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 21:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
#:c) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with editor retention? Does Wikipedia have an overall shortage of editors? Do specific parts or tasks have shortages of editors?
#::'''A''': Yes to the editor retention question. Possibly to the shortage of editors question - it depends on whether you can adjust the figures to take account of the work done by anti-vandalism bots. More editors would be good, but you want to retain the good ones and encourage and help those willing to learn and develop
#'''Reflection on 2012 cases:''' Nominate the cases from 2012 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.
#:'''A''': Looking at the cases listed at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2012]], the ones I am at least partly familiar with, or commented on, were 'Civility enforcement', 'Rich Farmbrough', 'Perth' and 'Fae'. In 'Civility enforcement', I initially thought the decision to desysop Hawkeye7 was too harsh, but looking back on it I think that was in fact the right call there (though still borderline). I don't think the topic ban of Malleus Fatuorum from RFA talk pages was well thought out. It has the air of a compromise thrown in to get the case closed, and has proved to be more trouble than it was worth (there was a lot of subsequent arbitration actions that followed on from this case). The admonishments, I agree were needed. In the 'Rich Farmbrough' case, the process was rather tortuous, but the outcome is one that I think was justified. One good thing there is that ArbCom seem to have learnt from the Betacommand cases in how to handle bot and/or automation restrictions (or how it can be near-impossible to handle them). That case also had follow-on incidents, and I note that Rich Farmbrough retired earlier this month (see his talk page). That is not an outcome anyone would have wished to see. In the 'Perth' case, my objections to the way the arbitrators engaged with the parties (or rather failed to do so) are documented in the arbitration noticeboard archives (see [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 18|archive 18]]). That might seem like process for the sake of process, but I firmly believe that if ArbCom had talked to the parties more in that case, and ensured that the parties were engaged with what was going on, that the outcome might have been more productive. Finally, the 'Fae' case looked to have been handled well - though I was somewhat surprised to see the ban of Fae that eventually resulted, it was clear some sort of sanction was warranted. The other cases I'm not familiar enough with to comment, but the 'Timid guy ban appeal' did have the hallmarks of a watershed moment, with an administrator (Will Beback) desysopped and banned. It also looked to have laid down a clear demarcation of the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and Jimbo Wales, which is something that was needed. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 21:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Line 102:
====Question from [[User:Casliber]] ====
{{for|follow-up comments and questions|Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012/Candidates/Carcharoth/Questions#Moved comments from #Question from User:Casliber}}
I've written some notes [[User:Casliber/ACE2012|here]] on arbitration. My question is about the next time the committee gets a complex dispute such as [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion|Abortion]] or [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change|Climate Change]], where arguments extend to misuse of sources as well as problematic behaviour. Do you see the role as strictly examining problematic behaviour or do you see the need to examine how antagonists are working within our content policies. If you don't see a role of examining how contributors are abiding by our content policies, how do you propose they do get examined? [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 00:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
:Thanks for writing those notes, Casliber. Some interesting thoughts there. Resurrecting the Core Contest was an excellent idea and it's been great watching that develop. You are right that Wikipedia is at a crossroads. You may be interested in a user talk page comment I noticed the other day [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hestiaea&diff=523476693&oldid=523475889 here]. That talks about breadth and depth of coverage. Attaining deeper, more reliable coverage of certain topics is difficult and may ultimately not scale.<p> Turning back to your question, I agree entirely with what you say about the need to focus on content-related editorial conduct. It has always been within the remit of the editorial community and ArbCom to sanction editors who abuse the content policies. Those who misrepresent sources, or who show basic incompetencies to edit, and don't change their ways or improve their editing, absolutely should be topic- or site-banned where needed. The difficulty has always been to lay out the evidence for such misconduct in a clear and unambiguous way (sometimes such misconduct is very subtle and hard to identify). Where that can be done, it should be done and the appropriate sanctions applied. It should, by and large, be laid out by fellow editors and assessed by the community (I believe that was done in the
====Questions from [[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]]====
#Looking at the attitudes of Wikipedia contributors towards the management of the project, I see a rough spectrum from what I would call "Community" at one end to "Authority" at the other - some are more inclined to lengthy consensus-seeking while others prefer the quick exercise of authority. There are strengths and weakness to both approaches, and I think the optimum position is somewhere in between - though I'm an advocate of a position near the "Community" end.<p>There's also a related issue, the "rules". Some contributors see the rules as being there to serve the community, while others appear to see the community as being there to serve the rules. I strongly favour the former, and I see the "rules" as closer to being guidelines that should be intelligently applied to each individual situation (with a few obvious "bright line" rules that need to be applied unconditionally). But I see many people (including many admins) who apply rules firmly and unconditionally.</p><p>How would your approach to the issues of authority and the rules manifest itself in your ArbCom actions?</p>
#:A: Both approaches have their place. Sometimes you need quick, decisive action, and sometimes you need more thoughtful deliberation. Some have described me as a deliberator, but I have supported decisive action when needed. One thing that is essential to remember, though, is that Wikipedia lives and dies by its community of editors and the quality of that community. Even the most authoritative orders issued from above (e.g. by the WMF) mean nothing if there is not a community of editors willing to make things work and to scale. At the ArbCom level, this was seen most clearly in the BLP PROD issue. Ultimately, it is a healthy and functioning community that will ensure Wikipedia continues to thrive, and ArbCom has very little influence on that. ArbCom's most important function is to support that community by breaking deadlocks where asked to do so, and removing those who are disrupting that community. In terms of rules, I fall on the 'a few bright lines' side, with common sense aligning with the spirit of the rules (rather than the letter of them), and being sufficient most of the time. That carries forward into ArbCom cases as well. When drafting ArbCom cases, the tradition has been to use formal principles, but I could adapt to a more informal (explanatory) approach if that was ever mandated. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 01:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
#What does "Civility" mean to you?
Line 131 ⟶ 130:
:Thank-you for these questions. I am currently working my way through the general questions and should get to the individual questions towards the end of this week. If there are any unforeseen delays, I'll add an update here. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 20:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC) <small>Briefly, though, my initial response to question 1 would largely be in line with what Newyorkbrad said [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012/Candidates/Newyorkbrad/Questions&diff=prev&oldid=524048713 here] in response to that question. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 21:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)</small>
'''A''': OK, I've now looked around a bit more and there are some things that need to be said (and I apologise for not realising this earlier). While I read through your talk page (back on 22 November) I saw the comments where you said you are writing a book about Wikipedia. I also saw that you created your account only quite recently (September 2012). I didn't realise the full implications of all this until today (I had been concentrating more on answering the other questions on this page). The issues are now clearer in my mind, especially after answering a question further down this page about something that took place three years ago. What worries me here is that you did not state up front in your questions to me and others in these elections that you are writing a book about Wikipedia, though you did mention the book in your fourth question to Newyorkbrad. What you need to do if you want to write about openness and transparency in Wikipedia culture, is tell people when you approach them whether or not you intend to use the material in your book.<p> Having got that out of the way, and to address your questions, my response to the first two questions still stands (I agree with what Newyorkbrad said, you are transparently basing your questions on actual events). On openness and transparency in general, as it relates to ArbCom, it depends entirely on the context. I would in general prefer a more open culture, one where old history (including some of the off-wiki matters) could be debated openly without old grudges and conflicts being stirred up again, but that doesn't really seem to be possible. It may have something to do with the openness itself, and that 'anyone' can edit and that (on Wikipedia at least) the old history is always there and can be brought up again at the click of a button. Which is why people can write books about it. How to handle embarrassing but not strictly confidential matters? My view is that Wikipedia and ArbCom should be more open in handling such matters, though more of these matters ''are'' freely available and openly debated than you might realise (take a look at several of the later arbitrator resignations in the 2009 and 2010 period, for example). [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 13:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)</p>
▲***Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hestiaea&diff=prev&oldid=524540858 this], I'll be responding here on the more general issues raised in the follow-up. Also relevant is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012/Candidates/Newyorkbrad/Questions&diff=prev&oldid=524541846 this] exchange on Newyorkbrad's questions page and the question asked there. The question on openness and transparency is a good one that deserves a considered response, so I'll be coming back to this one after answering some of the later questions. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 12:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
====Questions from Cunard====
''Please do not feel the need to answer all my questions. I've listed the topics that I'm most interested in; see [[#Note from Cunard|my note below]]. The other questions can be left unanswered if you don't have the time or inclination to answer all the questions. [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 04:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)''
;{{anchor|RfC closes}} '''RfC closes'''
<table class="shortcutbox noprint" style="float: right; border: 1px solid #aaa; background: #fff; margin: .3em .3em .3em 1em; padding: 3px; text-align: center;"><tr><th style="border: none; background: transparent;" class="plainlist"><small>[[Help:Link#Section linking (anchors)|Anchor]]:<ul><li>[[#RfC closes]]</li></ul></small></
# Are you aware of [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure]]? If you are interested in helping the community assess the consensus at RfCs and other discussions, please consider watchlisting it. If not, then no worries.
#:'''A''': I am aware of that page. I am unlikely to have time to help out there, and there may be the potential for some of the issues being discussed at some RfCs to reach arbitration, so if elected it would be best to avoid that situation arising. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 13:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
# There is an RfC at [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Review]] regarding review of closes of requests for comment.<p>Part of the discussion is about whether admins can summarily overturn non-admin closes of RfCs. Suppose that a non-admin editor in good standing closes an RfC. The non-admin was not involved in the discussion and has not previously expressed an opinion about the topic. An editor disagrees with the close and requests admin review. Should an admin be able to summarily overturn a non-admin RfC close?</p><p>Arguments for: (i) the safeguard is necessary in case the closer is inexperienced, (ii) having been through an RfA, admins are entrusted by the community to assess the consensus in discussions, and (iii) this would parallel other processes. [[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions]] states, "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator." [[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure]] states, "All non-admin closures are subject to review by an admin; but if the conditions listed above are met, the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is not sufficient reason to reverse a closure."</p><p>Arguments against: (i) admins do not have the exclusive power or special competence to rule on content outside of XfD (which in the case of deletion requires the admin flag), (ii) non-admins who have spent hours reading a discussion and summarizing the consensus should be given more respect, and (iii) summarily overturning closes discourages non-admins from closing RfCs, which will aggravate the perpetually backlogged [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure]]. A large number of the closers at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 4]] are non-admins.</p><p>Should an admin be able to summarily overturn a non-admin RfC close?</p>
#:'''A''': The actual question ''Should an admin be able to summarily overturn a non-admin RfC close?"'' is something that the editorial community need to discuss and answer. There are valid arguments on both sides, though I am more persuaded by the arguments to follow the similar processes developed elsewhere. Certainly experienced non-admins are perfectly capable of closing such discussions, the question is whether the closes will stick and be accepted. As I said, this is something the editorial community has to work out and come to a consensus on. Though I have given some of my views here, it is vital to realise that this is not something where the views of arbitrators or arbitration candidates are especially relevant. Their views here are that of any other member of the community. I do hope the editorial community do manage to come to a clear consensus on how such closures should be handled, as poorly handled closes can exacerbate disputes and end up prolonging them. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 13:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
# The second question asked at [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Review]] was: "Can an RFC closure be overturned by consensus at [[WP:AN]]?"<p>Deletion discussions have the review process [[Wikipedia:Deletion review]], and move discussions have the review process [[Wikipedia:Move review]]. There is currently no formal process for reviewing RfC closes. Recently several RfC closes have been contested. See "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=523775829#So_what_happens_with_disputed_closes So what happens with disputed closes]", the closing comment [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive772#Is it reasonable to have my integrity questioned and my edits reverted because I am an ip?|here]] ("The more complex question that emerged about who can close and/or reopen RfCs does not seem to have been answered but it's my judgement that it's not going to be satisfactorily answered in this forum."), [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 5#Talk:Autopsy images of Ngatikaura Ngati#RFC on image inclusion]], and [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive240#NAC, supervote and vote counting]] for several recent examples.<br><br>Do you agree or disagree that an RfC can be overturned by community consensus at [[WP:AN]]? Describe how you believe an RfC close review should be like in terms of its format: [[Wikipedia:Deletion review]], [[Wikipedia:Move review]], or something else.</p>
#:'''A''': Again, this is a question for the editorial community to thrash out. The key is to realise that processes that work smoothly are fine, don't fix things that aren't broken. When a process, or new process, appears not to be working, we (the community) need to try and work out what is causing the problems. Is it the process that is causing the problems, or is it editors and administrators abusing the process? If the latter, that could, ultimately, be a matter for ArbCom. If the former, then the community need to re-examine the process and try and fix it or replace it or reject it. Things do change and processes and noticeboards do get rejected. The community sanctions noticeboard was marked historical a long time ago, and the etiquette alerts noticeboard was also marked historical more recently. Again, individual candidates in this election can have views on this, but views on how to set up community processes and modify them, are not for arbitrators to give as arbitrators. What can be determined by consensus at any given ___location on Wikipedia, and the validity of such consensus, is, however, something that needs to be considered. One key matter is how widely publicised the discussion was (see [[Wikipedia:Publicising discussions]], a page I started) though not all discussions need to be publicised widely, whether the discussion was in the correct ___location, and whether there was sufficiently independent participation and closure. That in turn leads on to whether is it valid for a new discussion to be started later, or whether repeated attempts to force something through is being disruptive.<p> On the actual question asked, it is a matter for the community to work out. I don't think such matters should be 'politicised' (for want of a better word) by being asked in elections such as this (the oft-named ARBCOM vs GOVCOM issue). If the community want a committee to handle such process matters, they should set one up. On the general thrust of this question section, ArbCom's involvement in RfC closes should only extend to whether editors or administrators are abusing the processes <u>as set up by the community</u>. Certainly ArbCom could find (as part of a wider examination of a dispute) that a content-related RfC was improperly closed, or poorly managed, or poorly set up, but they should express no opinion on the outcome. If they sanctioned an editor or administrator they could, in some cases, state that a review (by the editorial community) and a new RfC may be needed. As in all such cases, the language should be advisory only. Certainly ArbCom can't overturn content-related RfCs (examination of user conduct RfCs is a different matter entirely), they can only make findings related to user conduct around such discussions. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 13:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)</p>
; {{anchor|Transparency}} Transparency
<table class="shortcutbox noprint" style="float: right; border: 1px solid #aaa; background: #fff; margin: .3em .3em .3em 1em; padding: 3px; text-align: center;"><tr><th style="border: none; background: transparent;" class="plainlist"><small>[[Help:Link#Section linking (anchors)|Anchor]]:<ul><li>[[#Transparency]]</li></ul></small></
<ul><li>Arbitrator {{user|SilkTork}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASilkTork&diff=518951112&oldid=518949675 wrote], "I would prefer if all Committee discussions were held on Wikipedia, except for those matters which do require privacy." I believe this is a position supported by many members of the community.
# Please explain why you agree or disagree with SilkTork's position.
Line 158 ⟶ 157:
; {{anchor|Recusals}} Recusals
<table class="shortcutbox noprint" style="float: right; border: 1px solid #aaa; background: #fff; margin: .3em .3em .3em 1em; padding: 3px; text-align: center;"><tr><th style="border: none; background: transparent;" class="plainlist"><small>[[Help:Link#Section linking (anchors)|Anchor]]:<ul><li>[[#Recusals]]</li></ul></small></
# In several past cases, arbitrators have been asked to recuse because of prior involvement with one of the parties.<p>See for example [[User talk:AGK/Archive/75#Agk]] regarding [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=507602026 this case request].</p><p>See also for example [[User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 8#Forgetting something?]]. Arbitrator {{user|SilkTork}} wrote, "I'm uncomfortable with the notion that a Committee member should recuse because someone expressed dissatisfaction with some action they made, particularly when it was over three years ago and didn't lead to any dispute. There is a thought that it wouldn't do any personal harm if I recused, and I can see that, but I don't want to set a precedent that a user can get a Committee member to recuse simply by disagreeing with them."</p><p>Describe your criteria for recusing when a party request you to recuse.</p>
#:'''A''': Someone should collect all the examples of such recusal requests over the years. I think Newyorkbrad has a few examples as well of how he handled recusal requests. In these examples, I think Silktork handled it well, particularly where he requested advice from other arbitrators. Certainly there are examples where I've been in dispute with other editors, or had them say things that might have upset me at the time (it is generally not fair to point out specific examples because you may be presenting other arbitrators with a bad first impression of that editor). It is something to ponder. The length and age of such matters does matter. Even if you, personally, had a bad impression of an editor when you interacted 5 years ago, both you and they will have changed since then. Being able to set aside such matters from long ago is part and parcel of being an arbitrator. The example with AGK is more complex. On balance, I think the recusal there was correct, and the 'spat in my face' comment (even if not said in the tone it sounds like) was unfortunate enough that recusal was warranted at that point. That brings up another point, which is that such matters should not become drawn-out disputes themselves. It is important that an arbitrator decides on a position and sticks to it, and then defers to the rest of the committee. Don't get involved in an argument. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 14:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
# Former arbitrator {{user|Cool Hand Luke}} has a list of his biases on his user page at [[User:Cool Hand Luke#My biases]]. Please describe when you will recuse to avoid the appearance of bias. For example, you might be heavily involved in a WikiProject or Wikimedia chapter and decide to recuse when an arbitration case involves one of its members. Or you might recuse if an arbitration case relates to a particular topic area that you have heavily edited.
Line 165 ⟶ 164:
; {{anchor|Consensus}} Consensus
<table class="shortcutbox noprint" style="float: right; border: 1px solid #aaa; background: #fff; margin: .3em .3em .3em 1em; padding: 3px; text-align: center;"><tr><th style="border: none; background: transparent;" class="plainlist"><small>[[Help:Link#Section linking (anchors)|Anchor]]:<ul><li>[[#Consensus]]</li></ul></small></
:<small>'''Note''': due to time considerations, I am skipping this set of questions. Also, I am not very active at XfD discussions and closures (that is putting it mildly!), so that factors into my decision to skip this section. If anyone particularly wants me to answer these questions, please let me know. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 14:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)</small>
# How would you have closed [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Kelley]]?<p>If you have a strong opinion about the topic and would have recused from closing the discussion, how would you have voted?</p>
# After considering [[Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus]], would you vote to endorse, overturn, or relist the "delete" close at the deletion review [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 November 21#Jill Kelley]]?
# [[WP:BLP1E]] states "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met". The third condition is "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a [[Wikipedia:Who is a low profile individual|low-profile individual]]." Discuss how this would factor into your assessment of consensus in an AfD involving a BLP, where BLP1E is cited as an argument for deletion. Feel free to mention the Jill Kelley AfD in your answer or to discuss this generally.
Line 178 ⟶ 177:
; {{anchor|Desysopping}} Desysopping
<table class="shortcutbox noprint" style="float: right; border: 1px solid #aaa; background: #fff; margin: .3em .3em .3em 1em; padding: 3px; text-align: center;"><tr><th style="border: none; background: transparent;" class="plainlist"><small>[[Help:Link#Section linking (anchors)|Anchor]]:<ul><li>[[#Desysopping]]</li></ul></small></
<ul><li>
{{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?</p>
#:'''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]]?
Line 190 ⟶ 189:
; {{anchor|Civility case clarification request}} Civility case clarification request
<table class="shortcutbox noprint" style="float: right; border: 1px solid #aaa; background: #fff; margin: .3em .3em .3em 1em; padding: 3px; text-align: center;"><tr><th style="border: none; background: transparent;" class="plainlist"><small>[[Help:Link#Section linking (anchors)|Anchor]]:<ul><li>[[#Civility case clarification request]]</li></ul></small></
<ul><li>A request for clarification was filed for [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement]] in October 2012. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=519807883#Clarification_request:_Civility_enforcement this permanent link] before the discussion was archived by a clerk.
# At [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment]], one arbitrator called {{user|Malleus Fatuorum}} "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&diff=prev&oldid=518754175 a net negative]". Do you agree or disagree that Malleus Fatuorum is a net negative?
#:'''A''': Before answering this set of questions, I should note that I commented on the original acceptance of this case when it was filed, commented in a few places in the case itself, and in at least one of the clarification requests. At least one of my encounters with Malleus was entered in evidence in the case (by another editor), and I've worked with Malleus on a few matters relating to articles, so I've seen both 'sides' of him (if you want to use that wording). I'd also worked briefly with Hawkeye7 (the administrator desysopped in that case) during a review I did at FAC, but that is less relevant to the questions here. I should also note that I was away on wikibreak when that whole trainwreck of a thread and set of motions took place, which is why I didn't say what I say below at the time. Finally, though the comments I give below concern both sitting arbitrators and fellow candidates in this election, I think the intensity of the feelings aroused in the community warrant speaking out on the matter here.<p> On the first question, I have come to dislike the 'net positive' and 'net negative' wording. It demeans editors to use that wording. They are human and arbitration shouldn't be like an episode of [[The Weakest Link]]: ''"You are a net negative. Goodbye."'' I also intensely dislike how some editors become the 'poster child' for certain issues, either through their own actions or being unfairly focused on by others (usually a combination of both). What I can say is that I would strive to avoid that sort of language. It might not have been picked up on as inflammatory, but in its own way it was. If things come to the point where an editor needs to be banned, do it with compassion and dignity. Don't escalate matters by using inappropriate language, especially not as an arbitrator. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 19:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)</p>
# A second arbitrator wrote that "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&diff=prev&oldid=518804376 Malleus has himself chosen to join those other groups in his self-selected banning; all we do here is acknowledge that Malleus has never been a Wikipedian, no matter how many otherwise constructive edits he has made.]" (He later [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&diff=prev&oldid=518818353 revised] the comment.)
#:(a) One view is that this comment is an honest and justified—though perhaps overly frank and poorly worded—assessment of the situation that was mischaracterized by some members of the community. An opposing view is that this comment is a hurtful, inappropriate comment that kicked an editor when he was down and inflamed the situation. Please share your thoughts about this comment.
Line 208 ⟶ 207:
#:(a) When there is such a backlash to a proposed decision, how does the backlash factor into your decision?
#::'''A''': The context and reaction should be taken into account, but ArbCom does also need to avoid being, or even ''perceived'' to have been too easily, swayed by public opinion. Also, being swayed like that would risk people 'leaving' in protest again if something similar happens, merely to try and achieve their desired result. Much like the SOPA blackout protest, repeating such forms of protest weakens them. I was deeply concerned about the SOPA blackout (but learned about it a bit too late to really marshal my arguments on that), but I have noticed that some people that left in protest over the SOPA blackout have since returned. Protest has its place, but to really get things done you need people that put forward arguments that achieve lasting change by persuasion. I'm pleased to see that at least one of those who 'left' in protest (over the Malleus ban motion) is standing in these elections. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 19:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
#:(b) {{user|SilkTork}} withdrew his support vote to ban Malleus Fatuorum the same day he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&diff=prev&oldid=519101770 wrote], "The Committee's role is to uphold community consensus, and the consensus on applying sanctions for incivility is blurred when it comes to valued contributors. However, the consensus in this incident appears fairly clear as regards this valued contributor - those who have spoken want him to remain productive. It is difficult to work on hidden consensus, and on making assumptions about what the silent majority want."<p>Do you agree or disagree with his opinion?</p>
#::'''A''': I agree with ''"the consensus on applying sanctions for incivility is blurred when it comes to valued contributors"''. The bit about the silent majority, I would agree with less. There are lots of 'silent majorities' on Wikipedia, not all of which are even majorities (if you get my meaning there). Also, some of the protests were less about Malleus specifically, and more about ArbCom over-reaching in general. Crucially, many of the silent majority want ArbCom to make (sensible) decisions ''for'' them, not to have come out in protest. Many times, ArbCom has to make difficult decisions of far more import to actual article disruption, with only a small crowd of partisans looking on. The 'silent majority' are not likely to turn up in protest or support there, but ArbCom is still expected to produce the goods. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 19:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
# Suppose you were an active, unrecused arbitrator in October 2012. Would you have supported or opposed the motion to further restrict {{user|Malleus Fatuorum}}'s participation at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship]] at [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement#Motion on Malleus Fatuorum (2)]]?
Line 214 ⟶ 213:
# If you would have opposed the above two motions, or if you believe a better decision could have been made, what action would you have suggested?
#:'''A''': I would have suggested rescinding the original restriction, and then if further trouble ensued I would have suggested a review and an attempt to come up with something more workable. Hopefully, at some point, RfA itself will be properly reformed, which would, in some ways, help more than focusing on individual editors. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 20:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
# {{user|Courcelles}} wrote [[User talk:Courcelles/Archive 103#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Questions from Bencherlite|on his talk page]], "As a general matter, it might have been worth voting on removing Malleus from RFA all-together, but I just can't support that option, as like-it-or-not, the community has to live with the admins it picks, and there is, in my mind, an insanely high bar for saying 'you get the admins you get, no opinions from you' but still having them be a member of the community."<p>Do you agree or disagree with his need to have "an insanely high bar" to ban users from RfA?</p>
#:'''A''': Yes, I
# Describe your criteria for site-banning a user. Would you vote to site-ban a user who you believe is not a net-negative, but a net-positive?
#:'''A''': My criteria would be whether they are a repeat offender after multiple warnings and chances to reform, and whether the nature of the offence itself warrants a ban. As I stated in my answer to the first question in this section, I disagree with the 'net negative' and 'net positive' language (though I may have used this language myself in the past, my views have since changed). Whether someone should be banned or not is a complex decision, and shouldn't just be the weighing up of 'good' and 'bad' things on either side. Sometimes it is necessary to ban those with a large number of constructive contributions, and sometimes it is necessary to ban those with only a small number of disruptive contributions. i.e. It is the nature and amount and effect of the disruption that matters more than the nature or amount of constructive contributions. ArbCom is not here to praise people for their contributions, it is here to resolve disputes that the community has been unable to handle, and to support those building this encyclopedia. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 20:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Line 223 ⟶ 222:
;{{anchor|Note from Cunard}} Note and thank you
I have asked many questions here. If you are short on time or do not want to answer all the questions, please '''do not''' feel that you need to answer all my questions. I am most interested in your answers to [[#RfC closes]], [[#Transparency]], and [[#Civility case clarification request]], so please concentrate on those questions, answer other questions on topics that interest you, and skip the rest if you want.<p>Thank you for running to be on the Arbitration Committee. I look forward to your answers to my questions. Best, [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 04:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)</p>
:Thank-you. I've now finished answering the questions, though I did skip one section I didn't have time to answer. Please ask if you have any follow-up questions. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 20:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
====Question from Bishonen====
{{for|follow-up comments and questions|Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012/Candidates/Carcharoth/Questions#Moved comment from #Question from Bishonen}}
Hi, Carcharoth, nice to see you stand again. One case the committee dealt with during your 2009—2010 tenure was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=306113495
Naturally, if a person might dream, I'd like to also learn your full and frank view of the part Jimbo played in the proceedings and of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=305648907 the constitutional crisis with respect to Jimbo's role which you acknowledged here]. But I realize this may not be the time and place.
Line 234:
I want to stress that this is a bona fide question; it's not meant to be a preamble to a debate or political disquisition. It's just something I'd like to know in order to know how to vote. I'll certainly respect your right to keep the content of your head private, and will silently accept whatever you're willing to tell me about your present views. In the unlikely event that I feel a need to respond to your response, I'll do so on the talk page. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 19:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC).
::Hi Bishonen. Thanks for the questions. As I said to Cunard above, I am working my way through the remaining questions and should get down to these ones some time at the weekend, as I'm not around Friday evening. Briefly for now, the 'aftermath' you link to was moved to another page, and can be seen [[User:Carcharoth/Arbitration activities#RFAR Bishonen-Jimbo Wales (July 2009)|here]]. That is within a collapse box, but can be seen by clicking the box open. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 20:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
:'''A''': OK, I've now re-read (skimming in some places) that very long thread from 2009, and the 'aftermath' bit where we talked on that userspace page of mine. My present thoughts on how your request was handled back then are that, quite frankly, it was a mess and it could have been handled a lot better. For that I apologise unreservedly. My own role, it appears, was to say far too much, though I see a lot of other people said a lot back then as well. What I would do differently today, if a similar request came up, would be to be more concise, to keep discussion on-wiki, and to not use the mailing list in the way it was used back then. My view of the part Jimmy played in the proceedings are that he did cross a line several times that he should not have done, but this is (or should be) old history now. The constitutional crisis died with a whimper, despite efforts on my part and by others to move the issue forward again (I mention this in the aftermath bit). It is possible that the arbitration policy that was eventually voted on (some years later I think) included some formal changes along these lines with respect to the relationship between Jimmy and ArbCom. It is possible that the Timid Guy ban appeal case (held earlier this year) saw other changes. As for the relationship between Jimmy and Wikipedia as a whole, that is not a matter for ArbCom, though I see the issue is topical once more if you look at his comments made [[User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_120#Electoral_Commission_RfC_Closure|here]] after being notified of the Electoral Commission set up for these elections. See also what was said [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012&diff=515440718&oldid=515439474 here] by Jimmy in his partial endorsement at the RfC for that Electoral Commission. I hope all this answers your questions. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 00:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
====Question(s) from Risker====
Line 243 ⟶ 245:
I'll look forward to reading your response. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 08:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
:'''A''': I think the concept of committee solidarity is an important one. Disagreement and discussion is a necessary part of the decision-making process, but once a decision has been taken then the whole committee should stand behind it. This doesn't mean that decisions can't be changed (e.g. if new evidence emerges) or that they can't be appealed at the right time and in the right places, but it does mean that in the absence of any changes the decisions taken should be upheld. There are limited exceptions for dissenting commentary after a case closes, such as at the arbitration noticeboard talk page, where a post-case explanation for being the lone voice of opposition may be requested. But it should be made clear that such explanations are limited and only to explain that arbitrator's position. They certainly shouldn't be used to rally support for the outlying position, or foment unrest. It would help if arbitrators making such post-case comments also made clear that the decision has now been made and that they stand behind it with the rest of the committee.<p> To answer the final part of your question, it depends on why the position is strongly held. If it is a case where a judgement call is needed, then you have to let the majority vote decide. If the strongly held position is a matter of fundamental principle and you (as an individual) are not comfortable with having to stand behind the committee decision, then it may be better to resign as a matter of principle. But in practice it rarely comes to that. Most arbitrators chose to work with their colleagues on the committee to produce the best decisions possible under the circumstances, which does involve learning how to work together and moving on, even after major disagreements. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 22:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)</p>
====Question from SilkTork====
As Wikipedia is global, issues arise on a 24 hour basis, so it can be useful to have Committee members available across several time zones to deal with urgent issues as they arise and reach a consensus, and also to prevent fragmenting the Committee when dealing internally with issues, so that members in isolated time zones do not become detached from discussions mainly taking place in one time zone. Would you mind indicating either in which [[List of time zones by country|time zone]] (UTC +/- 0-12) you are located, and/or those hours UTC (0 - 24) in which you are likely to be available (being aware that some people are active on Wikipedia long into the night, and also that some people may not wish to reveal their precise time zone). '''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="color:purple; font-family: Segoe Script">SilkTork</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:SilkTork|<span style="color:#347C2C;"><sup>✔Tea time</sup></span>]]''' 14:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
:'''A''': I live in London, UK, which is currently UTC 0 ([[Greenwich Mean Time]]). The hours I am available are generally early morning (06:00 to 08:00) or late evening (20:00 to 00:00). I am sometimes available outside those hours, but those are the best times to get hold of me. In terms of general availability, I tend to be around at weekends as well as during the week, but not always. I would indicate to the committee if I was going to be unavailable for an extended period of time. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 14:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
====Question from Bazonka====
Wikipedia is largely an on-line community, and some editors prefer their activities to remain entirely on-line. However, other Wikipedians engage in off-line, real world Wikipedia activities, such as Wikimeets, outreach work, or training. How much are you currently involved in these off-line activities, and would this be different if you were or were not on the Arbitration Committee? [[User:Bazonka|Bazonka]] ([[User talk:Bazonka|talk]]) 23:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
:'''A''': I've mentioned this in a few places already, in my candidate statement, and in answers to some of the questions above. Some of the Wikipedians I've met are listed [[User:Carcharoth/Additional notes|here]]. That ranges from people I have met only briefly at meetups or drinks or dinners when someone is in town, to those I have talked with at length about various matters. As I state there, I've not yet managed to make it to a Wikimania event, but I may do that one year. That page in my userspace also mentions some of the meetups I've attended, which have all been in the UK, in London or Cambridge. Some of the outreach or training work (sometimes little more than an editathon, sometimes something more organised) is also mentioned there. This may sound like a lot, but it is spread out over around 2-3 years and I would estimate I manage to get to such events or meetups around 3-4 times a year on average. I would like to do more of that, but if elected to ArbCom there would probably not be time to do more than attend the occasional event as I do now (some of the early meet-ups I attended were during my time as an arbitrator in the period from 2009 and 2010). If I was not elected, I may well try and do more along these lines. Meeting other Wikipedians gives a different perspective on things, and doing volunteer outreach work can be very rewarding. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 00:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
====Question from [[User:Begoon|Begoon]]====
I posted most of this to the discussion on the failed motion to "suspend" Elen, and if you find it phrased oddly as a question, that's why - the page was archived almost immediately afterwards. It occurs to me that maybe some voters might be interested in candidates' reactions to a question like this, so I'm asking it of each of you. It's a very open question, so feel free to ignore it or to comment on it in any way at all.
Is it an arbitration body we want? Do you think that's what we have? It doesn't seem to arbitrate at all, most of the time, it sits in judgement and hands down sanctions from on high. That's not the same thing at all. Do you think, instead, we've ended up with GOVCOM, complete with all the lovely political trimmings that brings along. If you think that's true - how did we get here, and is this where we want to be?
:'''A''': Briefly, as I don't have much time available to answer this (see note following this question), my views here are that there has been far too much politicisation and polarisation around issues such as civility, with ArbCom and the community dividing into factions. There needs to be far less of that, and more focus (as I said in answer to another question earlier) on editors working ''together'' (rather than arguing incessantly) to come up with workable strategies and approaches to this and other questions. The same applies to ArbCom in that it needs to focus more on resolving disputes, not engaging in internecine warfare (as seems to have been happening). One of Wikipedia's strengths is what can be done when people work together, and ArbCom is no exception to that. Taking that approach will (hopefully) bring the pendulum back from a judgemental body to one that actually helps resolves disputes rather than creating drama. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 01:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
====Mid-election note on availability====
<div style="background-color:#F8FAFF; border:solid thin black; padding:.5em;">{{xt|Due to prior commitments, I will have very little time available between now and 10 December for editing Wikipedia. Hopefully the views expressed above and in my statement provide enough information for those voting in these elections, but if there are any additional questions please ask and I will do my best to reply in the time available. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 02:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)}}</div>
====Questions from GabeMc====
1) Would ''you'' close an RfC that was happening as part of a formal mediation but wasn't to be closed by the mediator/s when you had 3 months previously participated in an AN/I discussion and !vote in which you supported the indef-block of an especially vocal party to the same dispute that resulted in said RfM and RfC? 2) Assuming this ''has'' happened inappropriately, what remedy would you suggest? [[User:GabeMc|<span style="color:green;">GabeMc</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:GabeMc|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/GabeMc|contribs]])</sup> 04:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
:'''A''': It was obvious when I first read this question that you had a specific situation in mind. What wasn't obvious then (though it is now, a few days later) is that, as seems clear from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Newyorkbrad&oldid=526616496#Gabe.27s_question here], you had a specific situation involving one of the candidates in this election. To put not too fine a point on it, election questioning shouldn't be used to rehash earlier dispute resolution and raise objections you have to what happened in specific situations. If you had a specific problem with one candidate, you should have asked the question to that candidate alone. So I'm going to elect not to answer the question, in part because of the approach you took here. See also what has been said [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Newyorkbrad&diff=526507762&oldid=526499377 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GabeMc&diff=526598936&oldid=526524315 here]. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 01:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
====Question from Piotrus====
=====Civility enforcement questionnaire=====
Or more of a request: I'd appreciate it if you'd take part in the [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire]], or if you decline, say here why you consider this questionnaire not to be worth your time. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 18:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
:'''A''': You may be aware that [[User:My76Strat|My76Strat]] asked a number of people (I think those that commented at the Civility Enforcement case) if they would be willing to fill in this survey. My response so far is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carcharoth&oldid=526630970#Information here] (static version). As I said there, I've decided not to take part in this survey. I've re-read the talk page and the further comments made there (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Civility_enforcement&oldid=526476070#Civility here onwards], static version). The range of responses so far is the most interesting thing, and I hope something useful does come out of it. On a more general (and possibly more important point), I don't think issues such as civility should be thrashed out during election season. It politicises the debate, when what is needed is a broad cross-section of the editing community (i.e. not just election candidates) debating the issues and coming up with workable strategies and approaches. ArbCom only deals with the worst disputes the community can't deal with, and neither ArbCom nor ArbCom election candidates can (or should) rewrite policy, even ones that may need rewriting or clarifying (in part because they may be called upon to interpret those policies if elected). A distinction should additionally be drawn between policy ''enforcement'' and policy ''drafting''. See also what I said above in my 'Addendum on civility' in [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012/Candidates/Carcharoth/Questions#Questions_from_Boing.21_said_Zebedee|this section]] of the questions. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 02:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
::Thanks for your reply. I have some additional questions on a somewhat different matter below. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 22:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
=====Additional questions=====
# when would you see a full site ban (full block) as a better choice then a limited ban (interaction, topic, etc.)? You are welcome to combine your answer to this with my subsequent question:
# on a related note, a while ago I wrote a mini wiki essay on when to block people (see [[User:Piotrus/Morsels_of_wikiwisdom#When_to_use_the_banhammer_-_and_when_not_to:_a_simple_math|here]]). Would you agree or disagree with the views expressed there, and why?
# to an extent we can compare the virtual wiki world to the real world, what legal concept would you compare a full site ban to? (As in, an interaction ban is to a restraining order what a full site ban is too...?)
# do you think there is an analogy to be drawn between site banning (full block) and incarceration?
# do you think the United States justice model with the highest incarceration rate in the world ([[List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate]] is something to applaud or criticize?
Thanks, --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 22:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
:Thanks for the questions, and apologies for the delay in replying (I hope the notice above about not being available much in this period was visible enough). I'll answer the questions below:
:# '''A''': A full site ban is generally applied when other options have failed (such as warnings and topic bans), the conduct has been wilfully repeated, or the conduct is sufficient to warrant an immediate ban, rather than trying other options first. It also depends on what the editor in question has to say about their conduct.
:# '''A''': Looking at your essay, I agree that one of the primary considerations should be how arbitration or administrative actions impact the production of encyclopedic content, or how such actions impact the support structure provided for the production of encyclopedic content. In either case, it can be a difficult judgement call. Sometimes a light touch is needed, other times tough calls need to be made and a line drawn. Again, it depends on the specifics and requires judgement and experience of how similar matters have been resolved (or not) in the past. I'm less certain about the concept you put forward of restricting and reforming users under the term 'deradicalization'. I don't think you can generalise here, and editors should be treated as human, not ciphers or names on a screen. Part of that, in my view, involves avoiding language that generalises too much. Generalise in essays, sure, but in actual cases, avoid that and look at the specifics.
:# '''A''': I don't think drawing quasi-legal analogies between moderation and dispute resolution on a website and incarceration or restraining orders used in legal systems is helpful. Rather than thinking of Wikipedia as an online activity somehow distinct and separated from the 'real world', it is better to think of Wikipedia as ''part'' of the 'real world', where the actions taken ''can'' have actual consequences (including legal ones). If you were, for instance, publishing online in a journal or helping with an encyclopedia to be published online, you wouldn't consider that separate from the 'real world' would you? So why do people treat Wikipedia editing and interactions as a 'virtual' activity?
:# '''A''': No. And see my previous answer for my reasoning on how such analogies are unhelpful. Actions online can (and have) led to people being prosecuted, fined and/or incarcerated. Wikipedia is not some separate world with its own quasi-legal judicial system (though it can at times feel like that). Those editing it need to be aware of that. Being blocked from editing a website is just that, not something analogous to some legal concept. If you have to draw an analogy, it is more akin to the owners of a private establishment open to the public reserving the right to refuse admission (and delegating that right to a committee to decide on difficult cases). That analogy is not perfect, though, and the unique aspects of Wikipedia means that no analogy will be perfect.
:# '''A''': The question would be easier to answer if you made explicit why you are asking it in the context of elections to Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee. The question would seem more relevant to US politics than handling dispute resolution at on online encyclopedia.
:[[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 14:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
====Question from [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]]====
#Question: "The use of [[Profanity|four letter words]] by editors in Wikipedia "discussions" is perfectly acceptable, as it quickly brings everyone to the "same level." - Do you agree? Thanks. <small>Added 21:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)</small>
#:'''A''': It brings everyone to the same level? No. There are valid arguments for when the use of profanities can be acceptable, but that is not one of them. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 14:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
::::(Thanks for date-stampimg for me - the instructions for adding a comment seem to suggest that no signature is required.) I wonder could you briefly describe what the "valid arguments" are, in your view? Many thanks. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 15:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
:::::Briefly (will be logging off soon for most of the rest of today), some profanities are used for emphasis. Though I would personally avoid using them even in that context (due to the possibility of misunderstandings), those who object to them need to be aware of that usage. Gratuitous use of profanities isn't really acceptable, but neither is it the worst thing that can be done on Wikipedia (i.e. use of profanities can distract from bigger problems both by other editors and the editors in question). [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 15:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
::::::Yes, I quite agree they can be a distraction. And can be purposefully employed to act as a distraction. I also think that established editors should try and use all other means available for adding "emphasis". It's very risky, in my experience, to use a profanity where one is not wholly sure how it will be received. Repeated use of multiple profanites often make the editor responsible appear as if he or she may have a problem with alcohol, or other substance, abuse. I'm sure this is not the image that the project wishes to give, particularly to younger editors. Thanks for your considered and measured response. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 15:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
| |||