Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Carcharoth/Questions: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Carcharoth (talk | contribs) →Questions from Cunard: answer specific question on the EncycloPetey case request |
Carcharoth (talk | contribs) m →Questions from Cunard: add two questions and answer formatting elements |
||
Line 144:
<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.
#:'''A''': I agree in part with SilkTork, in that ''more'' discussions should be held on Wikipedia, but disagree that all of them should be. The privacy elements obviously have to be held in private, but the key is being available to explain committee case, clarification, amendment and motion decisions both as they are being made, and after they have been made, and also ''how'' they were made (i.e. disclose when mailing list discussions result in on-wiki actions). Having said that, not all arbitrators should be expected to respond to an 'en banc' decision. If all arbitrators responded to all such questions, chaos would likely ensue. Arbitrators ''should'' be willing to explain outlier positions and any controversial individual actions. Major changes to arbitration processes should be held on Wikipedia. There are some exceptions to holding all discussions on Wikipedia. Presenting a poorly thought-out proposal can be counter-productive. Just as ordinary editors can work on proposals offline before bringing them on-wiki, so arbitrators should do the same. What is key is transparency and disclosure, along the lines of "this proposal was worked on off-wiki for x days/weeks, and had input from the rest of the committee and is presented here for further discussion". The key is to recognise when something has moved from 'preliminary' discussion to a stage where it needs to move on-wiki. If additional sanctions and findings are added to cases, it would be good if the transparency extended to "this was first proposed on the mailing list at such-and-such a time and arbitrator Y was delegated to work on the new wording which is now being proposed here" (the note would go on the proposed decision talk page). None of this is in the least confidential, and arbitrators should be more open in stating such matters, ''including'' when they are struggling to deal with cases in a timely manner (being honest about that is important). [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 13:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
# If you agree with SilkTork's position, describe how you will actively promote changing the Arbitration Committee's tendency to hold non-privacy-related discussions off-wiki.
#:'''A''': I appear to have answered this above in my reply to question 1 of this section. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 13:55, 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. -->
| |||