Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Carcharoth/Questions: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m ? |
Carcharoth (talk | contribs) →Additional questions: replies |
||
Line 280:
# 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|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</font>]]</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]]====
| |||