Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Carcharoth/Questions: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Carcharoth (talk | contribs) →Questions from Cunard: answer third and fourth questions on civility case clarification request section |
Carcharoth (talk | contribs) →Questions from Cunard: answer fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth questions on civility case clarification request section |
||
Line 211:
#::'''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)]]?
#:'''A''': I would have opposed the motion for the simple reason that I think the original restriction has been more trouble than it was worth. One of those unworkable remedies that paints a target on someone's back and kicks the issue down the road. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 20:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
# 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?
#:'''A''': Yes, I do. A time-limited complete ban from RfA would be a last resort, something to try after other attempts failed. The real problems, however, are the ways in which the RfA process doesn't function as well as it used to. Plus there is an insanely high bar for users to become admins. Hopefully some reform of that can take place at some stage. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 20:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
# 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)
<!-- 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. -->
| |||