Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Carcharoth/Questions: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:46, 25 November 2012

Revision as of 01:38, 25 November 2012

Line 215:

#:'''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 doagree with Courcelles that you need a high bar (a compelling reason) to ban people from RfA (though I would call that sensible, not insane). 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)