Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Carcharoth

Edit Analysis
A detailed breakdown of this candidate's edits in article and Wikipedia spaces can be found here. Franamax (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments
Cla68: I believe that Carcharoth is a genuinely nice person and an effective mediator, but I don't believe we currently need another good mediator on the ArbCom. Also, East718 expressed some concerns which I find compelling. Cla68 (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Follow-up, I notice that East718 changed his concerns. So, I'll strike those as concerns of mine also.  I believe, though, that SandyGeorgia has presented some valid concerns. Cla68 (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU As I do not believe in a system where my support may be rendered ineffective by the considerations of Jimbo and the existing ArbCom I shall only be supporting Risker; however, had my vote potential been not been constrained by the apparatus employed I would have supported this candidate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Addendum; I have now voted support for this candidate on a tactical basis, they having garnered more support than the nearest candidate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel those saying Carcharoth has been angling for arbcom for a while are wrong. On multiple occasions he has expressed unpopular views out of step with the majority (often out of step with mine!) - usually relating to disruptive users. This is hardly the behaviour of a career wikipolitician. There are valid reasons to oppose (which I have in fact done): this is not one of them. Moreschi (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Final election statement
As this is the final weekend of the election, I'm making a statement here to address and acknowledge some of the concerns raised by those who have voted 'oppose'. Firstly, I'd like to thank those who took the time to leave comments in support or opposition, or to link to guides where they had written a more detailed rationale. If you wish to respond to this statement, or ask any questions, please do so on this page.

I have been reading the comments carefully as they came in, and I can see that there is plenty of room on my side for improvement. Some of the concerns I was aware of and was addressing (such as involvement in AN and ANI), while I had not yet identified or started to address other concerns. I intend to learn from what people have said and continue to change the way I do things, using the comments on my vote page as a starting point.

The main concerns appear to be:


 * Drama and avoiding it
 * I can understand why my frequent presence in the past at drama-filled threads might cause concerns. Over the past three months, though, I have been deliberately reducing my participation in AN and ANI, with relatively few contributions to those noticeboards. This is because over the last year I have come to recognise the disadvantages of lengthy and dramatic noticeboard discussions. Indeed, though it is not something that people voting here may have noticed, I have deliberately avoided several of the most dramatic threads at AN/ANI and AE and RFARB in recent weeks and months. I hope this demonstrates that I can, in fact, consciously avoid areas of drama where getting involved may not be helpful, and to continue to avoid excessive contributions in such areas.


 * Addressing the wider point about my extensive participation at AN and ANI over the last two years, the threads I participated in involved contributions ranging from providing tidbits of information, to long posts of evidence concerning an incident, to examples of de-escalating tensions and reducing drama. I could provide examples of all of these, but ultimately that doesn't address the key point about the role arbitrators play. For that, I would ask people to look at my record of contributions on arbitration pages, and to trust (as many of my opposers have said) that my intent at noticeboard threads has always been good: to de-escalate things, to provide evidence when it appears to be missing, and to look past rhetoric and identify what is really going on.


 * The final point here is that, in my view, the factors that lead to drama at noticeboards would not be present when dealing with arbitration cases – the rigid structure of the case pages reduces the potential for drama. Having followed some of the more dramatic moments over the past year, I am also acutely aware of the need for arbitrators to conduct themselves with dignity and decorum, and I would aim to do this myself at all times.


 * Decisiveness and block actions
 * I can't say much about my lack of block actions, except to agree with those who have said that it is a good thing to have someone who doesn't think that blocking is always needed, and that discussion can sometimes be enough. As for decisiveness, in the context of an ArbCom case, where the decisions are made by committee, I don't think this will be a factor. I can promise that I will address requests and cases promptly, and in complex cases I would set a timetable for reaching my decision.


 * Excessive verbiage concerns
 * Unfortunately, as I've written too much here, I can't very well claim to be able to keep what I write short, particularly as it seems my answers to the questions were also the longest of any candidate. I realise this tendency to write at length and explain things in detail can be seen as a weakness, but I hope it can also be seen as a strength.


 * Lack of focus and distraction by trivial issues
 * This comment is one that I absolutely agree with, and I freely acknowledge that it has been a perennial problem for me. All I can say here is that I am aware of this and would keep it in mind and try and avoid this in future. This point, along with several others raised here, would be placed on a subpage in my userspace (along with my election pledges) for me to read periodically to remind myself of what I need to avoid doing.


 * Leniency and hardline stances
 * Some have expressed concerns that I would be lenient, and give users multiple chances. I have a breaking point, though, just like everyone else, and when that is reached I am quite prepared to endorse a ban or desysop. Indeed, as one opposer noted, I actually take a hardline stance on desysopping. Ultimately, though, this sort of thing matters less on an individual basis because decisions are taken by committee. The crucial point here, though, is that by the time something reached Arbitration, the users in question will have had many chances already, so I would be far less inclined to be lenient than I would have been at earlier stages of dispute resolution.

Finally, although I can't be certain, I think the mixed signals I've been getting from the support and oppose comments is because some of the judgments made here about me may be based on incomplete impressions. Because I edit in a wide range of areas, people often see only a small part of what I do, or only one side of me. I would ask those who are currently opposing me (especially the "regretful" opposes) to read the comments made by those who have supported me, and to then, in light of what I have written above, to consider whether they are prepared to reconsider their oppose votes. Thank-you. Carcharoth (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)