Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/David Fuchs

In the interests of giving everyone a broad field of candidates to support/ponder/tear apart, I'm putting myself out there... again. I'm David Fuchs, an editor since 2005, admin since 2007, and arbitrator since 2010. I don't have much to say beyond that, but I encourage interested parties to ask me questions.

(Postscript: I've obviously identified to the WMF, and I have no active alt accounts; inactive is User:Derklin, same as my previous statement.)

• David Fuchs (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)

v t e Arbitration Committee Election 2012 candidate: David Fuchs Candidate statement Questions for the candidate Discuss this candidate

Candidates are advised to answer each of these questions completely but concisely. Candidates may refuse to answer any questions that they do not wish to, with the understanding, however, that not answering a question may be perceived negatively by the community.

Note that disclosure of your account history, pursuant to the ArbCom selection and appointment policy, must be made in your opening statement, and is not an optional question.

A note from the candidate: As I'm a current ArbCom member standing for re-election, some of the questions will be addressed differently. I'm drawing on my previous questions from the 2010 election for some of this, so I encourage people to read those questions where applicable to get a sense of where I'm coming from and where I've been. Cheers. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Skills and experience:

   a) What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, do you think you will bring to the committee if elected?

   b) What kinds of personal experience have you had with the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes? If applicable, please provide links to Arbitration cases where you have been involved, or offered an uninvolved statement.

   My goal is and has been to bring a fair-minded approach to arbitration proceedings. I've been involved in the majority of ArbCom's cases, appeals, and correspondence over my term; among the cases I drafted were Kehrli, Cirt/Jayen466, and Article titles and capitalization.

2. Strict versus lenient decisions: Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, would you side more with those who support a greater number of bans and desysoppings, or with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions? What factors might generally influence you?

   My answer to this is largely the same as the one I made in 2010: better to offer more chances than less. At the same time, we should be holding more experienced users (and users with advanced, trusted permissions) to higher standards because the community has vested more faith in them.

3. ArbCom Practices:

   a) ArbCom and policies:

   i) ArbCom has not historically made or altered Wikipedia policy, and it does not include matters of Wikipedia policy in its scope of responsibilities. Policies, however, often play a role in cases brought before the Committee. Can, and should, the Committee take positions on the appropriateness, effectiveness, or clarity of policies as part of the case resolution process? If so, should ArbCom be allowed to make changes to policy directly, or recommend specific changes to policy as part of the case resolution process? Please give reasons.

   To a degree I think ArbCom can try to force people to the table to hash out content disputes, and that has been historically the case in a few decisions. Beyond that we certainly can't say "policy says this"; I think as part of our decisions we try and suggest avenues to improve guidelines or policies, but that's mostly in the context of addressing editor behavior rather than some grand philosophical outlook. From my experience the Committee is a very diverse group in regards to viewpoints, and that's helpful in making us look for ways to suggest options for the community without overstepping our role. At the same time, however, ArbCom members should feel free to propose policy or guideline changes in their ongoing role as a community member—I think committee members divorcing themselves from an active role in discussions outside the realm of arbitration is a loss of important voices.

   ii) The "Five Pillars" essay has been mentioned in recent discussions. Ought it be used in committee findings, or is it of explanatory rather than of current direct importance to Wikipedia?

   It's perhaps a question similar to the schism between the ideas expressed in the United States Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution—one espouses a list of ideals, the other is the more pragmatic expression of those ideals into law. Policy and guidelines are our constitution, in effect; however it is always worth examining that framework in the context of our original and changing mission. Perhaps the Five Pillars are "historical", but that doesn't make them any less important.

   iii) Biographical articles (not limited to BLPs) form a substantial part of conduct issues placed before the committee. Without getting the committee involved in individual content issues, and without directly formulating policy, how should the committee weigh such issues in future principles, findings and decisions?

   There's really no good simple answer for this, because BLPs have, in principle and how we've dealt with things on the Committee, a very conditional area. It's hard to weigh the legal and moral concerns when we're dealing with real live people whom Wikipedia can hurt (or help.) I think in part that the majority of the community does understand that, and I think the BLP issue, while thorny, has overall been a place where good decisions have been made about when to forsake process to make the right call earlier, and when not to bow to external forces in crafting a fair and deliberate outcome. One thing is for certain: with great Google juice comes great responsibility on our part to do right by our topics and our living subjects.

   b) Article content: ArbCom has historically not made direct content rulings, e.g., how a disputed article should read. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Can, and should, the Committee establish procedures by which the community can achieve binding content dispute resolution in the event of long-term content disputes that the community has been unable to resolve? Please give reasons.

   c) ArbCom and motions:

   i) What is, in your view, the purpose of an ArbCom motion? Under what circumstances, or for what areas or processes, would the use of a motion be your first choice in handling the situation.

   Motions are a way of dealing with minor issues that don't require a full case, that could only be aggravated by a full case, or introducing stop-gap measures to calm things down while a case goes forward. They shouldn't be introduced or carried as a way to squelch discussion or avoid a thorny issue—non-amendment motions really shouldn't be that controversial.

   ii) When is it not appropriate to start a motion? If the community has reached consensus on an issue, does ArbCom have the right to overrule that consensus with a motion? If the community is unable to resolve an issue for some time, and there is no active case related to that issue, can ArbCom step in and settle the issue themselves by motion?

   I've never seen a motion started out of thin air—I think the Committee has been mostly successful in addressing only the relevant elements that are brought to them. To my knowledge, there have been few cases where larger editorial consensus and a motion have conflicted—or at least, never where consensus has been fixed, as if that were the case there wouldn't have been a reason to introduce a motion in the first place.

   iii) There were a number of controversial motions this year. Please identify a few motions from 2012 that you believe were appropriate (if any), and a few you believe were inappropriate (if any). Discuss why you have reached the judgements that you did.

   I suppose the elephant in the room is the Malleus motion, and I think ultimately we were trying to address the failings of a previous arbitration case (see below) in a way that was overstepping some of the request that was placed before us. A colleague's ill-advised and (in my opinion) wrong commentary in the motion also did not help matters. Even had we the committee been in agreement on the ban motion, looking back on it I don't think that was the place nor the time to propose it.

   d) Private information: In light of the mailing list leak:

   i) Do you believe that the Arbitration Committee should keep records that include non-public information, including checkuser data and the real life identities of users, after whatever case or issue that information originally pertained to had been handled by the committee?

   ii) If the answer to any part of (a) is yes, how long should the information be kept, how should it be kept, and who should have access to it?

   Yes; from what I have experienced, the Committee could not function as ably if it did not have access to that information. A large amount of the back-end work of members (ban appeals, etc.) relies on these records. Because the necessity of keeping old records depends on the information in question, there's no hard timeframe that can be adhered to for all data.

   iii) Currently, much of ArbCom business is handled over email, and in other non-public forums. Do you believe that all ArbCom discussions that do not directly concern private information should take place publicly? If so, how? Why or why not?

   For the most part, I believe the committee has been very good about making sure that most discussions that would be best served by a public discourse are done that way, and we are constantly looking for other ways to be transparent (the recent discussions about how to redesign BASC, for example.) At the same time, some things are simply easier to discuss via email and approach in a unified way onwiki—I've had Skype calls with arbitrators about drafting decisions which could not have happened as effectively if we were committed to doing everything online. That said, I think it's unfortunate that on a case-by-case basis some areas for public comment are not used as often (such as Workshop pages.)

   Addendum, in response to a clarification request from NE Ent: By "unified" I mean working out disagreements or questions before taking them to the community. We are a committee of some very different and opinionated individuals, but I think it's usually best if we address our own concerns first so we can approach the community on the same page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   iv) What, if anything, did the Arbitration Committee do wrong before, and in response to, the mailing list leak? What did they do right? What would you have done differently?

   In retrospect, the committee was going to be an easy target for an attack until we stepped up several measures on a personal and system-wide basis. Ultimately I think that the leaks forced some good changes in our procedures, how old archives are kept, and prompting some continuing processes into figuring out a new mail system that will prevent the sort of archive accumulation that occurred previously—a win-win for everyone, I believe.

   v) If your real identity is not already widely known, do you intend to publicly identify yourself if elected?

   Not really an issue in my case. :)

   vi) To what extent, if any, do Users have the right to see evidence used in Arbitration proceedings? To what extent, if any, do Users have the right to question witness' statements against them? To what extent, if any, does the Community have a right to see Arbitration evidence and statements?

   In many cases, we make it abundantly clear to those that submit private evidence that it should be posted publicly. Anonymous or hidden evidence simply doesn't have as much credibility for a variety of reasons, and I and a few other members have made sure not to base sanctions like bans on private evidence where we felt we would not be giving the parties fair chance to respond.

   e) Past Cases The Arbitration Committee has historically held that prior decisions and findings were not binding in any future decisions or findings. While this may have been wise in the early years of Wikipedia, is any avoidance of stare decisis still a valid position? How should former cases/decisions be considered, if at all?

   We don't have any form of judicial precedent beyond that we generally take a look at what worked and what didn't in old languages and take that into consideration, including standardized statements of principles, etc.

4. Division of responsibilities:

   a) What do you think should be the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and the WMF? Are there issues currently being handled by one that should really be handled by the other?

   b) What do you think should be the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and the community as a whole? Are there issues currently being handled by one that should really be handled by the other?

   The division of responsibilities between ArbCom and the community have been fairly well-established, and I don't think there's much reason to change them. As mentioned earlier, we've been discussing ways to bring in more regular editors in some respects (BASC) but those don't really change the overall dynamic of roles. The interplay between the WMF and ArbCom has to me undergone some shifts since I joined the committee, I believe for the better; as the WMF has gotten more involved in facilitating the smooth operation of the wiki and protecting its editors, the committee has gotten more support in executing its duties when we weren't sure if we would be stepping on the Foundation's toes.

5. Challenges facing the project: Please share your views on the following subjects. In each case, discuss ArbCom's role, if any.

   a) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with "civil POV pushers"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?

   We've got plenty of problems, and civil POV pushers would be one of them—however I think the emphasis should be on "POV pushers", not the "civil" adjective. I do think that there should be a higher standard for treating other users with respect and thinking before you post, but regard for civil behavior and norms does not cloak or forgive POV pushing or any other poor behavior. ArbCom can only deal with those whom the community brings before us; the community is the group that has to deal with POV pushers, and so it's the best place to create a framework that is acceptable in dealing with them.

   b) "Factionalism" has been seen by some as a problem on Wikipedia (many different names for such factions have been given in the past). Do you believe that factionalism is a problem? Should committee decisions be affected by evidence of factionalism, in a case or around an article or articles? If the committee makes a finding that "factions" exist as part of a conduct issue, how should factionalism be treated in the remedies to the case?

   Some degree of what you could term "factionalism" is simply the result of Wikipedia growing and attracting a more diffuse editing body, as well as bringing together smaller-knit groups with a common interest and often singular visions for that interest. I tend to think of factionalism as the nationalist issues ArbCom and the community in general often grapple with, not really the tag-teaming the link describes (although now I know the etymology of the phrase!) That said, any sort of cliquish behavior can eventually lead to tag-teaming, and its connotations are that of coordinated subversion and attacks, which we could certainly do with less of. I would say that the parties of cases are generally good at bringing to the Committee's attention the actions of all involved, and that tag-teaming behaviors usually reveal themselves easily; that sort of behavior can and should be considered in a decision.

   c) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with editor retention? Does Wikipedia have an overall shortage of editors? Do specific parts or tasks have shortages of editors?

   The statistics are hard to argue with; the English Wikipedia is facing a looming manpower shortage. I doubt that the effects of that shortage would be very evenly distributed; some areas on the wiki are currently only handled by two or three people and yet are essentially in my opinion to managing and improving Wikipedia's content; others might lose many editors but still be maintained at a fairly high level of quality. My experience on Wikipedia over these six years has been that you cannot underestimate the power of the community as a whole, but the influence and good one editor can do is still tremendously great—whether they are experts or amateurs.

6. Reflection on 2012 cases: Nominate the cases from 2012 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.

   There's two issues are heart with cases: how smoothly they run, and how effective they are in the long term. I tend to think the latter is far more important than the former, although we can't really judge how effective recent cases have been as easily. I think overall many of the cases were effective thus far; if I had to pick one that likely will not have the hoped-for effects, it would probably be Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement, in that we should have written the decision tighter and expected some of the results.

1. Proposals for change: What changes, if any, in how ArbCom works would you propose as an arbitrator, and how would you work within the Committee towards bringing these changes about?

   Largely, I think many of the issues I was concerned about on election has ceased being issues; the Committee has worked at delegating tasks to the community as a whole where possible, and with less cases to accept has done a much better job timely addressing them. Areas where we still lag are promptly dealing with clarifications and amendment requests (although the recent template overhauls have personally helped me keep track of this much more), and effectively processing ban appeal requests (where again, changes made later in my term have ameliorated some of the issues, while others remain.)

Please ask your individual questions here. While there is no limit on the number of questions that may be asked, please try to keep questions relevant. Try to be as clear and concise as possible, and avoid duplicating questions that have already been asked.

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#Question:
#:A:

I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide. In past years, I have gone strictly based on points, as I was not familiar with candidates; that is no longer true. This year, I reserve the right to deviate from this past practice, but missing answers will still be noted. Also, I may be asking about specific things outside the scope of ArbCom; your answers would be appreciated regardless.

The questions are similar to those I asked in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011; if you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those, but make sure the question has not been reworded.

1. What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?

   A: Not optimal, simply put; the case was a victim of a series of unfortunate setbacks on unrelated issues that snowballed into delaying the case.

2. What is the purpose of a WikiProject?

   A: At their best and most baroque, WikiProjects form a sort of microcosm of the wider community, providing support when writing articles (through peer reviews, centralized discussions that cut through bureaucracy, etc.) Issues can, of course, arise from this—walled gardens of content, niche style guides that don't conform to common standards, logrolling GA or FA reviews that don't adequately meet criteria, etc; but I think that they have shown themselves to be valuable parts of the editing culture.

3. Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with "vested contributors"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?

   A: I hesitate to say the English Wikipedia has a "problem", in that it presupposes vested contributors are some sort of homogenous group, and they're really not—what leads to the sort of problems we associate with vested contributors is pretty varied. In terms of editor conduct, if it's a problem, it's a problem, regardless of who's involved and what they've done, and I think the Committee has shown, especially in the past year, that it does not shy away from addressing problematic behavior by "big names".

4. Under what circumstances would you resign from the Committee, if elected?

   A: I imagine the usual reasons; if I felt I wasn't pulling my weight; if my presence on the Committee was actively interfering with its work; if I decided to leave the internet life behind and head out on the open road to find the meaning of the American dream, etc.

5. a) Do you believe that "it takes two to tango" in some circumstances? In every circumstance? b) Would you consider mitigating the sanctions on one user given the actions of another? Eliminating them entirely?

   A: Being intolerably provoked is something I personally look at in regards to some editing conflicts, but by the same token sinking to another's level, to use a hackneyed expression, is little better at solving the issues. Those that can respond coherently and respectfully to abuse or difficulties are going to have a much easier time addressing their own issues.

6. ZOMG ADMIN ABUSE!!!!!!! a) How do you determine if abuse of the tools actually took place? Is there the possibility of a "gray area" in the interpretation of the policies? b) When do you believe that it is appropriate for ArbCom to act on a case of admin abuse, without having the scenario brought to ArbCom by another editor?

   A: The committee has in my opinion had a good policy of looking at extenuating circumstances when dealing with admin tool misuse—were they trying to do the right thing but were too hasty, did they overreact, etc. In a large portion of cases, however, it's up for the community to decide if an action merits consideration as "abuse" before the committee hears the case, and rightly so. ArbCom can't and shouldn't be the judges and the cops; I think that the usage of the emergency desysop is a good common-sense exception to allow us to fairly expediently deal with issues before they become problematic, so that the community has a chance to hash things out and sort it out.

7. What is the relationship of the English Wikipedia (enwp) ArbCom to other Wikimedia sites? Specifically, a) Does the enwp ArbCom have jurisdiction over what happens on other sites, and/or can those actions affect the user on enwp? b) Is public evidence on other WMF sites valid in arbitration proceedings? Admin-only or private evidence?

   A: On occasion, the matter of whether poor behavior on other sites or on other WMF projects has a bearing on behavior here crops up, whether in cases, an ANI thread, etc. There's a lot of gray areas in this, but generally if it's reasonable to conclude their off-site actions are affecting on-wiki activities, it's a matter that is concerning. ArbCom certainly doesn't have jurisdiction over the internet in general and other WMF sites in particular, and nor should it; I think most arbs realize that there are also tangible "cultural differences" between projects, for lack of a better word, and that referring matters that might require another site's attention, such as commons or meta, is far better than inserting ourselves into their issues.

8. What are your thoughts as to what happened to Mat Honan, since you are applying to be an arbitrator, one of the most visible positions on one of the top 10 sites on the Internet?

   A: I'd probably have ignored it mostly if not for the arb mailing list leaks, which had prompted me to enable two-factor authentication on all my email addresses and double-check my other security measures—I might have taken a more "would never happen to me!" attitude towards the Honan episode otherwise. While I wouldn't have been anywhere as easy a target as Honan, I do think the case stresses to everyone on the internet that you really need to seriously consider your internet security as an essential part of being online, and not just something to think about after you get hacked and your digital life destroyed.

9. If elected to ArbCom, do you plan on being active for the majority of your term?

   A: Aye. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 05:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Rschen7754 00:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've written some notes here on arbitration. My question is about the next time the committee gets a complex dispute such as Abortion or Climate Change, where arguments extend to misuse of sources as well as problematic behaviour. Do you see the role as strictly examining problematic behaviour or do you see the need to examine how antagonists are working within our content policies. If you don't see a role of examining how contributors are abiding by our content policies, how do you propose they do get examined? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see the same distinction that I think you do in dividing those kinds of behaviors. ArbCom doesn't tell the community "article X should say Y", but I think that content is always an ArbCom issue insofar that if it's being added, removed, or gamed via the subversion of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, it's editor misconduct. Generally that kind of misconduct goes hand in hand with content issues. Even if it's just removing certain parties so that good-faith contributors can hash out a workable compromise to a thorny issue, to a degree ArbCom is always involved in examining content-related behaviors. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Over the course of this year your public presence on arbitration pages has been primarily to vote on proposals, often with you essentially signing on the dotted line. Do you believe this level of activity is sufficient for an editor serving on the Arbitration Committee? Would you be able to commit to being a more significant participant in future proceedings?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   A: Things like ban appeals require things like research and emails to blocking admins; things like drafting are usually done locally. A lot of arbwork simply never leaves behind an edit. I'd like to work more on articles on the wiki side, but I don't think my activity levels are an issue in regards to executing the role of arbitrator. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Looking at the attitudes of Wikipedia contributors towards the management of the project, I see a rough spectrum from what I would call "Community" at one end to "Authority" at the other - some are more inclined to lengthy consensus-seeking while others prefer the quick exercise of authority. There are strengths and weakness to both approaches, and I think the optimum position is somewhere in between - though I'm an advocate of a position near the "Community" end.

   There's also a related issue, the "rules". Some contributors see the rules as being there to serve the community, while others appear to see the community as being there to serve the rules. I strongly favour the former, and I see the "rules" as closer to being guidelines that should be intelligently applied to each individual situation (with a few obvious "bright line" rules that need to be applied unconditionally). But I see many people (including many admins) who apply rules firmly and unconditionally.

   How would your approach to the issues of authority and the rules manifest itself in your ArbCom actions?

   A: I suppose in any form of rough governmental structure there's the question of whether the rules begin informing the people, rather than the other way around. I think I, along with many on the project, have had some evolution of their mindsets in regards to what to follow and when. The community as a whole has done a good job of providing the necessary wiggle room in policies and guidelines for common sense to find purchase. In regards to ArbCom decisions, I think there's a good amount of institutional wisdom enshrined in the past case decisions which serve as codified common sense. You can tell what has worked and what hasn't, what thoughts are accepted by the community as rote, what elements it grapples with or is divided by, and what lines to hold fast to—and what tug-of-wars you should just let go of the rope.

1. What does "Civility" mean to you?

   A: Civility to me means simply courtesy when interacting with others. I appreciate and understand the desire to be blunt—and, in an editing community where the primary (and usually sole) method of communication is text, I think everyone is best served by coming straight to the point, expressing themselves clearly, and not prevaricating. At the same time, you can tell someone you think they are wrong without name-calling and without insults. Being forthright ≠ being a jerk, and that extends to all sides in a disagreement—one person's incivility does not excuse a response in kind. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. How should the committee handle extended absence (>3 months) by one of its members?

   A: The arbitration policy gives wide latitude to the committee to remove members due to a prolonged absence. While I think there's a good reason to expect arbs not to have significant gaps in their tenure, I don't see the harm of simply marking them as inactive until they return if we've been notified. Longer, unplanned absences have resulted in suspending the arb in question, which is partially due to security concerns if we cannot reestablish contact with the arbitrator (similar to the regs for OS/CU bits.)—the reason for Iridescent's removal.

2. Incoming mail, Case management, Ban Appeals support, Higher permissions or Technical team: these were the initial internal teams set up by the Arbitration Committee (and I note you were on the Ban Appeals support team). Whilst this division has now evolved, which part of in the internal operations of the committee do you feel you could bring expertise to, and why?

   A: I think my biggest focus while an arb has been on handling ban appeals, and it's the area that I'm happiest with my work (and if re-elected would continue to focus on). having users with checkered pasts or long block logs successfully appeal the Committee, and become productive Wikipedians, is A Good Thing, and something that the Committee has a unique option of facilitating with the community. In regards to your question's preface, I will say that in practice it seems like arbs sort of fall into internal teams whether they've been formally defined in that role or not—I started handling ban appeals pretty quickly into my term when was wasn't on BASC, and when I was busier other arbs stepped up to the plate of prodding others for their input and making sure appeals weren't lost.

1. Moral conundrum. You discover that a fellow Arbitrator has done something potentially embarrassing for the Committee, possibly even criminal. You are concerned, but the Arbitrator has already stepped down for a different, unrelated reason. A year or two later, he or she stands for election again. You, and a number of other arbitrators, are horrified. Do you (a) persuade the arbitrator to stand down, perhaps implying that you will publicise the affair on-wiki. Or (b) make the matter public, even if it is embarrassing for you, given the Committee did not make the affair public from the very beginning.

   A: If an arbitrator confessed to criminal behavior I can't think of a justifiable reason I wouldn't immediately get in contact with local authorities--that has nothing to really do with Wikipedia in particular, it's just common sense. I don't believe in tar-and-feathering someone, so whether the community should be notified of such matters is I think very conditional on the criminal charges--I can see how it is a pressing interest to the community (let alone with Foundation) if any editor is accused of crimes germane to our child protection policy, for instance, but not so much if he or she smokes a joint. There's also the consideration of charges vs. actually being found guilty of a crime--Wikipedia is a pretty good venue to ruin someone's life, and I think we should be mindful of that. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. Another candidate has (commendably, in my view) come out against lying. Do you think it is ever acceptable to lie, e.g. if the lie is 'for the good of the wiki', or if the lie prevented embarrassment for Wikipedia or the committee? Do you think there should be a 'statute of limitations' on lying? I.e. if you find a Committee member has lied some time ago, do you think it is best to 'let sleeping dogs lie'? If you do, how does that square with Wikipedia's principles on openness and transparency?

   A: The Committee has in the past attempted to avoid the embarrassment and ridicule of parties by omitting sensitive details, and I think that's the right approach. With that said I can't think of a reason when an outright lie is necessary, proper, or helpful at defusing or resolving an issue; being brutally honest and disregarding tact would probably have made the Committee look far better as opposed to worse in a few instances. A 'statute of limitations' feels like too much law jargon for Wikipedia; if the past is still a problem in the present, you deal with the present. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. You are one of the few Arbcom members who has contributed audited content in the past year. Do you feel that this has affected the way that you approach your duties and decisions as an Arb? If so, how has contributing content made you a better member of the committee?

   A: If we go back in time to RfA, I think we might find that I was the person who coined the phrase "audited content", and that's something I regret in that I just made an easier term to bludgeon people over the head with. I think all community members should have some experience dealing with the issues that content creators and maintainers face—we're here to build the Wiki, after all. But I'm not so certain that audited content itself proves much in that vein. A lot of the pages I've promoted were solo efforts where I didn't have to deal with some of the issues of collaboration good-faith editors might face, say, trying to make sure a political pundit's biography stays properly sourced, non-defamatory, and neutral. The stars and badges don't convey any real sense of an editor's mettle. That said, I do think I've tried to act as an arb who is focused on enabling the production of good content as a chief goal, and I suppose that is influenced by the article work I've done in my time as a Wikipedian. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not feel the need to answer all my questions. I've listed the topics that I'm most interested in; see my note below. The other questions can be left unanswered if you don't have the time or inclination to answer all the questions. Cunard (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC closes

1. Are you aware of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure? If you are interested in helping the community assess the consensus at RfCs and other discussions, please consider watchlisting it. If not, then no worries.

   It's actually on my watchlist right now, however I think that my activities as an arb preclude taking an active role in those kinds of closures (I imagine I'll get into this more when I get to the recusals questions.)

2. There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Review regarding review of closes of requests for comment.

   Part of the discussion is about whether admins can summarily overturn non-admin closes of RfCs. Suppose that a non-admin editor in good standing closes an RfC. The non-admin was not involved in the discussion and has not previously expressed an opinion about the topic. An editor disagrees with the close and requests admin review. Should an admin be able to summarily overturn a non-admin RfC close?

   Arguments for: (i) the safeguard is necessary in case the closer is inexperienced, (ii) having been through an RfA, admins are entrusted by the community to assess the consensus in discussions, and (iii) this would parallel other processes. Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions states, "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator." Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure states, "All non-admin closures are subject to review by an admin; but if the conditions listed above are met, the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is not sufficient reason to reverse a closure."

   Arguments against: (i) admins do not have the exclusive power or special competence to rule on content outside of XfD (which in the case of deletion requires the admin flag), (ii) non-admins who have spent hours reading a discussion and summarizing the consensus should be given more respect, and (iii) summarily overturning closes discourages non-admins from closing RfCs, which will aggravate the perpetually backlogged Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. A large number of the closers at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 4 are non-admins.

   Should an admin be able to summarily overturn a non-admin RfC close?

   I think like many Wiki-processes an answer really falls into the realm of "have some common sense, dammit." Non-admins should really save closures for things unlikely to be controversial and require the extra words and wasted energies of an overturned decisions. Admins should make sure that their overturns are based in serious policy reasons, and not just because a non-admin closed it. If they made a bad call, overturn. There's also the issue of intra-admin wheel wars that gets into another realm of disagreement, but in short form I would say that the advice provided on Wikipedia:Deletion process, leavened with sensibility, lays out what people should do pretty well.

3. The second question asked at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Review was: "Can an RFC closure be overturned by consensus at WP:AN?"

   Deletion discussions have the review process Wikipedia:Deletion review, and move discussions have the review process Wikipedia:Move review. There is currently no formal process for reviewing RfC closes. Recently several RfC closes have been contested. See "So what happens with disputed closes", the closing comment here ("The more complex question that emerged about who can close and/or reopen RfCs does not seem to have been answered but it's my judgement that it's not going to be satisfactorily answered in this forum."), Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 5#Talk:Autopsy images of Ngatikaura Ngati#RFC on image inclusion, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive240#NAC, supervote and vote counting for several recent examples.
   
   Do you agree or disagree that an RfC can be overturned by community consensus at WP:AN? Describe how you believe an RfC close review should be like in terms of its format: Wikipedia:Deletion review, Wikipedia:Move review, or something else.

   I don't think WP:AN is a very good venue for such a broad, policy and process-related question that really should have the input of a broad swath of editors. I cannot say I have particularly followed the disputed RfCs as of late except when they landed (or nearly landed) on ArbCom's doorstep, so I don't consider my opinion to be one that holds much merit, but I do think that deletion review often functions as a swill of regurgitated opinions and more "this isn't a vote, but here's my vote" nonsense, and keeping RfC's from falling into that trap would be a good idea.

Transparency

• Arbitrator SilkTork (talk · contribs) 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.
  1. Please explain why you agree or disagree with SilkTork's position.
  2. 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 think I'm sticking with my sentiments from my previous election (in response to Chaser's question: "some processes just shouldn't take place here (due to sensitivity or speediness issues), but the end results should be made clear". While I know the WMF is attempting to remedy this, Wikipedia is still an absolutely horrid place to actually try and have, let alone follow, threaded conversations. I simply could not keep up with what the Committee was dealing with if it were not aggregated in one place and sent to my email (where it is marked, tagged and filtered via my own criteria.) I'm not sure all editors realize the volume of incoming mail we get; a quiet day might mean as many as 20-30 new responses (and that ticks up from there depending on whether you're a part of other lists, such as OTRS, Oversight, and Checkuser.) At this point it's simply not feasible to run ArbCom as effectively or more effectively by Silk's criteria.

Recusals

1. In several past cases, arbitrators have been asked to recuse because of prior involvement with one of the parties.

   See for example User talk:AGK/Archive/75#Agk regarding this case request.

   See also for example User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 8#Forgetting something?. Arbitrator SilkTork (talk · contribs) wrote, "I'm uncomfortable with the notion that a Committee member should recuse because someone expressed dissatisfaction with some action they made, particularly when it was over three years ago and didn't lead to any dispute. There is a thought that it wouldn't do any personal harm if I recused, and I can see that, but I don't want to set a precedent that a user can get a Committee member to recuse simply by disagreeing with them."

   Describe your criteria for recusing when a party request you to recuse.

2. Former arbitrator Cool Hand Luke (talk · contribs) has a list of his biases on his user page at User:Cool Hand Luke#My biases. Please describe when you will recuse to avoid the appearance of bias. For example, you might be heavily involved in a WikiProject or Wikimedia chapter and decide to recuse when an arbitration case involves one of its members. Or you might recuse if an arbitration case relates to a particular topic area that you have heavily edited.

Consensus

1. How would you have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Kelley?

   If you have a strong opinion about the topic and would have recused from closing the discussion, how would you have voted?

2. After considering Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus, would you vote to endorse, overturn, or relist the "delete" close at the deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 November 21#Jill Kelley?
3. WP:BLP1E states "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met". The third condition is "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." Discuss how this would factor into your assessment of consensus in an AfD involving a BLP, where BLP1E is cited as an argument for deletion. Feel free to mention the Jill Kelley AfD in your answer or to discuss this generally.
4. The policy Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus states, "When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted." Wikipedia:Deletion review states, "If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed" (though the admin also has the discretion to relist the debate).

   (a) If "normally" is removed, there would be a conflict between the policy and deletion review practice. Why are admin decisions at XfD not treated equally to other admin actions? Do you agree or disagree with this different treatment?

   (b) How do you interpret the above policy wording with regard to block and unblock discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard?

5. When closing an XfD or RfC, how would the number of votes for a position factor into your decision? Suppose the vote count for a non-policy-based position is significantly higher than for a policy-based position (perhaps 80% vs. 20%). Further suppose that there is substantial participation and that all of the participants are experienced editors in good-standing. Do you close as consensus in favor of the non-policy-based position, consensus in favor of the policy-based position, or no consensus? Feel free to speak generally or to use the the AfD mentioned in #1 if it is applicable.
6. Regarding the previous question: Does the community collectively determine what the policy-based position is through their discussion at the XfD or RfC? Should the closing admin be tasked with determining the policy-based position? Or should there be a balance of the two?
7. Would you have supported or opposed the motion that passed at the BLP deletions case request in January 2010?

Note and thank you

I have asked many questions here. If you are short on time or do not want to answer all the questions, please do not feel that you need to answer all my questions. I am most interested in your answers to #RfC closes and #Transparency, so please concentrate on those questions, answer other questions on topics that interest you, and skip the rest if you want.

Thank you for running to be on the Arbitration Committee. I look forward to your answers to my questions. Best, Cunard (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of very limited situations, the Committee renders decisions only on matters at the request of one or more members of the community. Decisions on which the Arbitration Committee holds votes are passed or failed based on majority support. At times, the members of the Committee can be divided on an appropriate course of action, and voting outcomes will sometimes be determined by only one or two votes.

How do you feel about the concept of committee solidarity, i.e. all members of the committee standing by a decision that has been made in accord with committee processes? If you are elected, will you personally be able to publicly uphold the considered decision of the Committee as a whole, even if the position you took did not receive majority support? How would you deal with a situation in which you have a strongly held position that is not supported by the Committee as a whole?

I'll look forward to reading your response. Risker (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think having a diverse set of viewpoints on the Committee has been an asset in the past and will continue to be in the future. The Committee has often disagreed, sometimes stridently, but I think we're also mindful of not forcing minority opinions to "give in" when a balance can be reached that addresses the issues in a way all parties can agree with; members have also been generally willing to "come 'round" to other points of view, so I think public statements of dissatisfaction, etc. only serve to undermine the Committee's ability to deal with contentious issues in the future; I think the Committee has a responsibility to stand behind its decisions as a whole.

As Wikipedia is global, issues arise on a 24 hour basis, so it can be useful to have Committee members available across several time zones to deal with urgent issues as they arise and reach a consensus, and also to prevent fragmenting the Committee when dealing internally with issues, so that members in isolated time zones do not become detached from discussions mainly taking place in one time zone. Would you mind indicating either in which time zone (UTC +/- 0-12) you are located, and/or those hours UTC (0 - 24) in which you are likely to be available (being aware that some people are active on Wikipedia long into the night, and also that some people may not wish to reveal their precise time zone). SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still UTC-5 based, and I'm generally on and monitoring things from around 1100 UTC- 0400 UTC. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is largely an on-line community, and some editors prefer their activities to remain entirely on-line. However, other Wikipedians engage in off-line, real world Wikipedia activities, such as Wikimeets, outreach work, or training. How much are you currently involved in these off-line activities, and would this be different if you were or were not on the Arbitration Committee? Bazonka (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone to one or two real-world meetups, and I attended this past Wikimania 2012 for a day or two. There were a few special get-togethers for Wikimedia functionaries I wouldn't have gone to if not for my involvement with the Committee, but other than that I don't think it's affected my off-line wiki activities at all one way or another. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 04:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I posted most of this to the discussion on the failed motion to "suspend" Elen, and if you find it phrased oddly as a question, that's why - the page was archived almost immediately afterwards. It occurs to me that maybe some voters might be interested in candidates' reactions to a question like this, so I'm asking it of each of you. It's a very open question, so feel free to ignore it or to comment on it in any way at all.

Is it an arbitration body we want? Do you think that's what we have? It doesn't seem to arbitrate at all, most of the time, it sits in judgement and hands down sanctions from on high. That's not the same thing at all. Do you think, instead, we've ended up with GOVCOM, complete with all the lovely political trimmings that brings along. If you think that's true - how did we get here, and is this where we want to be?

A: Well, the phrasing makes it a bit awkward to encapsulate, but to approach it in very oblique terms--do we need a "court of last resort" like ArbCom to whom we delegate the power to decide cases that are intractable otherwise? I'd say yes. Does it necessarily have to follow the form of ArbCom as now? Of course not. Should ArbCom's precise role and responsibilities change? I've been in favor of tweaking some roles, and devolving others back to the community. Seeing as several editors have voiced their wish that I had taken more of a leadership role on the ArbCom in the past, I think that trying to push some of those changes forward would be among my goals for another term. I think the important thing to remember, however, when the "GOVCOM" label is tossed around, is that the vast majority of Wikipedia never has to deal with the Arbitration Committee, and that is a testament to ArbCom's importance and irrelevance at the same time. The Arbitration Committee does not have a major effect on many areas of Wikipedia where editors are able to collaborate good-naturedly and resolve disputes in smaller venues or amongst themselves--and that's by design. I think that many sentiments about GOVCOM don't really deal with the Committee directly so much as they are about Wikipedia's role and responsibilities as the encyclopedia. Times have changed, and the ArbCom will change with it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions: 1) Do you think it's appropriate for an admin to close an RfC/RfM when said admin had previously participated in an AN/I report discussion, supporting the resulting indef-block for a highly vocal party to the mediation from which the RfC originated? 2) Assuming that a) this has in fact happened, and b) you indeed think it's inappropriate, what then would you suggest as a remedy? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A:I assume you have an actual case in mind, but in general it's not a clear-cut question. There's a difference between avoiding the *appearance* of a conflict of interest versus having an actual conflict of interest. We should be encouraging our admins to play a role beyond just being the closers, deleters, and banners. If it's a highly contentious topic, I think common sense would be for the admin who has participated to leave it to someone else to close to avoid any possible drama that could be foreseen; I don't see the same advice applying for easy actions with no fuss. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or more of a request: I'd appreciate it if you'd take part in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire, or if you decline, say here why you consider this questionnaire not to be worth your time. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. when would you see a full site ban (full block) as a better choice then a limited ban (interaction, topic, etc.)? You are welcome to combine your answer to this with my subsequent question:
2. on a related note, a while ago I wrote a mini wiki essay on when to block people (see here). Would you agree or disagree with the views expressed there, and why?
3. to an extent we can compare the virtual wiki world to the real world, what legal concept would you compare a full site ban to? (As in, an interaction ban is to a restraining order what a full site ban is too...?)
4. do you think there is an analogy to be drawn between site banning (full block) and incarceration?
5. 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, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Question: "The use of four letter words by editors in Wikipedia "discussions" is perfectly acceptable, as it quickly brings everyone to the "same level." - Do you agree? Thanks.

   A: Simply stated, no. I've never seen a discussion improved by profanity, and I highly doubt Wikipedia is the venue to prove that observation wrong. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, do you think interactions at Wikipedia are generally harmed by the use of profanities? Are there any words that should not be allowed? Nigger, queer and cripple aren't really tolerated. But they're not profane, are they? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]