David Fuchs
Many people who don't haunt WP:FAC, WP:GAN, or WP:PR probably don't know me. I joined Wikipedia sometime back in 2005, became an admin in 2007, and have been editing fairly consistently since (for those history-minded chaps out there, I was also a runner-up in the 2007 ACE). I'll keep this stuff short, because I imagine the questions are where the real action happens.
My belief is that we should all be here to—in some way or form—create an encyclopedia, and all of ArbCom's actions should be mindful of that. Fostering a site that allows editors to work diligently means having an Arbitration Committee that acts fairly, quickly, and prudently. If elected, this would be my aim.
Username business: I for a short time operated an alt account, Derklin, intending to use that as my cleanup and anti-vandalism account. I realized that this idea was a waste of time and energy and haven't used it in a long time. Other than that, I've always gone by this moniker onwiki.
- David Fuchs ( talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
 |
Arbitration Committee Election 2019 candidate:
David Fuchs
|
General questions
- Skills/interests: Which of the following tasks will you be prepared and qualified to perform regularly as an arbitrator? Your responses should indicate how your professional/educational background makes you suitable to the tasks.
- (a) reviewing cases, carefully weighing up the evidence, and voting and commenting on proposed decisions;
- (b) drafting proposed decisions for consideration by other arbitrators;
- (c) voting on new requests for arbitration (on the requests page) and motions for the clarification or modification of prior decisions;
- (d) considering appeals from banned or long-term-blocked users, such as by serving on the Ban Appeals Subcommittee or considering the Subcommittee's recommendations;
- (e) overseeing the allocation and use of checkuser and oversight permissions, including the vetting and community consultation of candidates for them, and/or serving on the Audit Subcommittee or reviewing its recommendations;
- (f) running checkuser checks (arbitrators generally are given access to CU if they request it) in connection with arbitration cases or other appropriate requests;
- (g) carrying out oversight or edit suppression requests (arbitrators are generally also given OS privileges);
- (h) drafting responses to inquiries and concerns forwarded to the Committee by editors;
- (i) interacting with the community on public pages such as arbitration and other talk pages;
- (j) performing internal tasks such as coordinating the sometimes-overwhelming arbcom-l mailing list traffic.
- A: To me an arbitrator isn't much use if they aren't reviewing cases, weighing evidence, workshopping decisions, and dealing with the effects of past cases (appeals, clarifications, etc.) My real-world responsibilities constantly require dialogue and problem-solving with education members and boards, and so that's what I'm most comfortable with. In addition to my OTRS work, I'd be interested in helping field questions from the community and make sure interested editors are as involved and aware of what ArbCom is doing as possible. Unless necessary, I can't imagine how much I would get out of having CU/OS bits. The less people we have to have with those tools, the better.
- Stress: How will you be able to cope with the stress of being an arbitrator, potentially including on- and off-wiki threats and abuse, and attempts to embarrass you by the public "outing" of personal information?
- A: People who spend a lot of time trying to out me are going to be incredibly bored, I suspect (especially since I've made it pretty easy). Dealing with criticism and abuse is something everyone has to handle, and I find the best response is often a smile, a joke, and moving on. Taking oneself too seriously only sets one up for more stress than they need. I've never had to leave Wikipedia for any time due to workload, and even with ArbCom chores I don't see that being an issue.
- Principles: Assume the four principles linked to below are directly relevant to the facts of a new case. Would you support or oppose each should it be proposed in a case you are deciding, and why? A one- or two-sentence answer is sufficient for each. Please regard them in isolation rather than in the context of their original cases.
- (a)
"Private correspondence"
- A: General support. Excerpting or summarizing emails is often permissible (legally and ethically), but there is a tacit agreement to privacy between the recipients that I feel should be upheld save for extenuating circumstances.
- (b)
"Responsibility"
- A: Support fully. If you have to think twice before doing an action, it's probably not the right choice to take.
- (c)
"Perceived legal threats"
- A: General support again. Bringing up litigation only makes heated conflicts worse.
- (d)
"Outing"
- A: General support. Respecting an editor's wishes regarding personal information is the nice thing to do, but once the information is online it can't be redacted fully and the editors who regret their actions can't pretend that they can ignore it. (See also Lar's question 5 on talk)
- (a)
"Private correspondence"
- Strict versus lenient: Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, would you side more with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions, or with those who support a greater number of bans and desysoppings? What factors might generally influence you? Under what circumstances would you consider desysopping an admin without a prior ArbCom case?
- A: It depends, as the question says, on the case. I would as a general rule err towards offering second chances. Everyone slips up, most people slip up really badly at least once. Persistent issues mean that more strict measure are required. If an admin's use of the tools consistently violate community standards or wiki policies, a desysop may be merited, prior case or no.
- ArbCom and policies: Do you agree or disagree with this statement: "ArbCom should not be in the position of forming new policies, or otherwise creating, abolishing or amending policy. ArbCom should rule on the underlying principles of the rules. If there is an area of the rules that leaves something confused, overly vague, or seemingly contrary to common good practice, then the issue should be pointed out to the community". Please give reasons.
- A: Agree. ArbCom should be the last step in dispute resolution. If the case involves underlying issues about a guideline or practice, then it should make it clear that the community has to get together and do something to rectify this; it's not the US Supreme Court.
- Conduct/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?
- A: ArbCom hasn't and shouldn't get involved in dictating actual article content. However, they can aid in content disputes by placing frameworks for editing articles and, in extreme cases, removing or inhibiting editors who are disrupting efforts at solving the disputes.
- Success in handling cases: Nominate the cases from 2010 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.
- A: 2010 was a far better year than many previous in ArbCom's handling of cases, and on the whole I cannot pick one case that would enshrine the most successful of them. My obvious reach for least successful would be Climate Change, but given how recently it was closed I'm not sure how fair that is. One thing is sure: it dragged on far too long for too little net benefit.
- 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?
- A: To me, the biggest issue in ArbCom's operation has always been the lag in opening and closing cases. More aggressive efforts at quickly jumping on cases and preventing momentum from faltering is a chief concern. Additionally, I would try and limit the number of decisions that require community watch wherever possible; the community at large has better things to do than play enforcers.
Individual questions
This section is for individual questions asked to this specific candidate. Each eligible voter may ask a limit of one "individual" question by posting it below. The question should:
- be clearly worded and brief, with a limit of 75 words in display mode;
- be specific to this candidate (the same individual question should not be posted en masse onto candidates' pages);
- not duplicate other questions (editors are encouraged to discuss the merging of similar questions);
Election coordinators will either remove questions that are inconsistent with the guidelines or will contact the editor to ask for an amendment. Editors are, of course, welcome to post questions to candidates' user talk pages at any time.
Please add the question under the line below using the following format:
- Question:
- A:
- Question: What are your thoughts on paid editing? I should also inform you that I'm a candidate too, so feel free to refuse to answer if you think it's inappropriate of me to ask.
Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (
talk) 04:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- A: I'm personally against it, but as there's no guideline or policy, the only real thing we can do is abide by WP:COI. If you're getting paid to contribute, you should declare it on your user page and/or respective article talk pages. Better yet, do that and get a neutral someone to scrutinize the edits. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 04:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Question: Was this a year and a half ago? Holy crap. But anyway, you once wanted to place
Super Columbine Massacre RPG! on the main page for April 20, 2009, the 10-year anniversary of the Columbine shootings. I pitched a holy fit about it--because why else do we come to Wikipedia unless someone pitches a righteous fit about something--and Raul eventually dropped it from the TFAR page. I conveniently have short-lived periods of righteous indignation and mostly forgot the incident, but I'm curious to know what do you think of this conflict now. Would you do the same today? Do you feel that arbitrators and Wikipedia itself have a responsibility for what it presents to readers? --
Moni3 (
talk) 05:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- A: I'd have to admit I was pointlessly churlish about the whole affair. Looking back I think I would agree with Raul's sentiments that the article was worth being featured on the main page, but not on such a loaded date. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 05:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Question: You mention that ArbCom might indirectly help the community resolve policy or content disputes by limiting disruptive editors. Sometimes an editor can disrupt the consensus building process with no obvious
edit warring or
incivility. Should ArbCom ever limit an editor's participation in
dispute resolution simply because they have no good faith intention of building a consensus? What would you look for as "disrupting efforts at solving the disputes"?
Shooterwalker (
talk) 08:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- The short answer is yes. Editors can be disruptive without edit warring or incivility; things like forum-shopping and wikilawyering can stall the good-faith efforts of others. These actions broken down might not always be in violation of policies, but they are definitely opposed to the spirit of Wikipedia's guidelines and ethos. I've seen cases like this brought to ANI, and for the most part these editors are dealt with there, but ArbCom remains a viable alternative if the usual venues are not effective.
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(
talk) 15:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough... How do you spot such an editor? Particularly when they have learned to be civil and avoid edit wars... how do you distinguish between a dispute resolution that failed after an honest good faith attempt, versus one that failed because of a bad faith
filibuster?
Shooterwalker (
talk) 16:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's hard to definitely point out such an editor because there isn't really a template they all fit neatly. Patterns in editing is one of the strongest such indicators... I know there have been occasions when I've stubbornly pushed for something that in hindsight wasn't worth pushing for (I suppose Moni's question above is a perfect example). However a pattern of these situations, combined with an unwillingness to modify behavior when (hopefully politely) confronted about the possible disruption of their actions, suggests the type of editor we're talking about. As to edit warriors, I'd say the community is pretty diligent about pointing out when people are skirting
WP:3RR with malevolent intent.
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(
talk) 18:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! That's a pretty reasonable way of looking at it. Good luck! Shooterwalker ( talk) 18:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's hard to definitely point out such an editor because there isn't really a template they all fit neatly. Patterns in editing is one of the strongest such indicators... I know there have been occasions when I've stubbornly pushed for something that in hindsight wasn't worth pushing for (I suppose Moni's question above is a perfect example). However a pattern of these situations, combined with an unwillingness to modify behavior when (hopefully politely) confronted about the possible disruption of their actions, suggests the type of editor we're talking about. As to edit warriors, I'd say the community is pretty diligent about pointing out when people are skirting
WP:3RR with malevolent intent.
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(
talk) 18:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough... How do you spot such an editor? Particularly when they have learned to be civil and avoid edit wars... how do you distinguish between a dispute resolution that failed after an honest good faith attempt, versus one that failed because of a bad faith
filibuster?
Shooterwalker (
talk) 16:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- The short answer is yes. Editors can be disruptive without edit warring or incivility; things like forum-shopping and wikilawyering can stall the good-faith efforts of others. These actions broken down might not always be in violation of policies, but they are definitely opposed to the spirit of Wikipedia's guidelines and ethos. I've seen cases like this brought to ANI, and for the most part these editors are dealt with there, but ArbCom remains a viable alternative if the usual venues are not effective.
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(
talk) 15:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Question from
User:Chaser: You talk in A1 about visible work on cases.
This interview indicates that a lot of arbitrators spend most of their time on work that is not visible to the community. Do you expect to also participate in considering ban appeals and handling serious harassment and privacy related issues?
- A: I intend to work in those areas to a degree (banned users aren't exactly my forte), but I think we should still strive to be as open as possible. For the reasons Kirill mentioned in the linked interview above, some processes just shouldn't take place here (due to sensitivity or speediness issues), but the end results should be made clear. People often get upset if they feel that an action was spurred by "back-room deals" or collusion, and I think that leads to distrust of ArbCom. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 05:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Question: If you were a member of the Arbitration Committee when
this motion was presented before the committee, how would you have responded, and what reasoning would you have provided to justify your position?
–
Grondemar 18:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- A:I support most of the elements of the motion, however I do not feel that blanket amnesty was the proper resolution. Administrators who overstep the bounds of authority and trust vested in them by the community should not be given a pat on the head. Ignoring procedure for the betterment of the project is acceptable: treating the community like dirt and exacerbating latent problems is not. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 19:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Question: What was your opinion of the
climate change case? You commented on this page's talk page that you considered it akin to an ethnic dispute, which I suppose is a fair comment in some ways, but not in other ways. But what did you think of the decision as a whole, and what could have been done to improve it, if anything?
NW (
Talk) 19:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- A: I consider climate change akin to an ethic dispute in that it is a highly political area with a great deal of passionate editors on all sides; these sorts of situations are where Wikipedia has historically failed at arbitrating. Lots of admins aren't familiar with the underlying issues and are loathe to block POV pushers, sometimes there are sympathetic admins who fence troublesome editors... it can be quite messy. As to the Climate Change case, I've got mixed feelings. I think ArbCom did make the right choice by supporting the sanctions board. The more things get addressed at a community level, the better; as you mention in your question, climate change does have some small but significant differences from many other standoffish topics and the sanctions were a way of specifically targeting those differences. Deleting the userspace pages and blocking the main instigators was a necessary step in enabling more level-headed, good-faith editors room to collaborate without a cloud of ill will. Ultimately, ArbCom helped deal with not only the problematic editors, but problematic behaviors, which will hopefully bear fruit in the longer-term. My chief concern was the length of time it took to reach a decision, which exacerbated some issues: we're seeing lots of requests/challenges to the ruling, which is partly not ArbCom's fault, but could have been ameliorated with greater alacrity.
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(
talk) 22:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Do you feel that the remedies that ArbCom ended up doling out were appropriate and proportional? And to follow up about the difference between climate change and say, Israel-Palestine—in reality, there is a general agreement among people who know what they are talking about for climate change. There is no such consensus for Israel-Palestine. How, if at all, should that be taken into account for administration and arbitration purposes?
NW (
Talk) 22:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- To make sure I'm answering your question, in regards to "there is a general agreement among people who know what they are talking about for climate change"—are you referring to agreement in regards to anthropogenic warming, or the scope of the topic?
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(
talk) 23:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- My apologies. I meant the
former.
NW (
Talk) 03:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- No problem. Whether or not "science agrees" or it's a question of "right to exist"/"apartheid", you're still going to have to deal with blatant POV pushers and more subtle spin doctors. The only difference is with CC, uninvolved editors have a little bit more of a lifeline, as the subject is easier broached and understood than the tangled messes of nationalist politics. In that regard, if this were the "Israel-Palestine" case instead of Climate Change, I'm not sure the approach of community-developed sanctions would have been successful since there's no common frame of agreement. I think more helpful in that case would be the drafting of an admin or uninvolved editor's guide to help inform editors about the locus of disputes here on-wiki. Ethnic disputes often rage so successfully because there are few admins who can be considered impartial or uninvolved and at the same time understand the topic enough that they feel confident in making blocks and restricting bad behavior. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 14:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- My apologies. I meant the
former.
NW (
Talk) 03:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- To make sure I'm answering your question, in regards to "there is a general agreement among people who know what they are talking about for climate change"—are you referring to agreement in regards to anthropogenic warming, or the scope of the topic?
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(
talk) 23:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Do you feel that the remedies that ArbCom ended up doling out were appropriate and proportional? And to follow up about the difference between climate change and say, Israel-Palestine—in reality, there is a general agreement among people who know what they are talking about for climate change. There is no such consensus for Israel-Palestine. How, if at all, should that be taken into account for administration and arbitration purposes?
NW (
Talk) 22:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- A: I consider climate change akin to an ethic dispute in that it is a highly political area with a great deal of passionate editors on all sides; these sorts of situations are where Wikipedia has historically failed at arbitrating. Lots of admins aren't familiar with the underlying issues and are loathe to block POV pushers, sometimes there are sympathetic admins who fence troublesome editors... it can be quite messy. As to the Climate Change case, I've got mixed feelings. I think ArbCom did make the right choice by supporting the sanctions board. The more things get addressed at a community level, the better; as you mention in your question, climate change does have some small but significant differences from many other standoffish topics and the sanctions were a way of specifically targeting those differences. Deleting the userspace pages and blocking the main instigators was a necessary step in enabling more level-headed, good-faith editors room to collaborate without a cloud of ill will. Ultimately, ArbCom helped deal with not only the problematic editors, but problematic behaviors, which will hopefully bear fruit in the longer-term. My chief concern was the length of time it took to reach a decision, which exacerbated some issues: we're seeing lots of requests/challenges to the ruling, which is partly not ArbCom's fault, but could have been ameliorated with greater alacrity.
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(
talk) 22:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Question: In response to Shooterwalker (q.3 above) about civil editors who may be disrupting the project, you point to editing patterns as a mechanism for detecting this sort of editor. Could you comment on whether you believe
single purpose editing is a likely editing pattern for such editors and, if you do, how you would approach cases involving such editors (I understand every case has unique aspects to it but I'm hoping you can provide a general answer). Thanks. --
RegentsPark (
talk) 15:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- A: SPAs are often disruptive editors, but as WP:SPA states many are "well-intentioned editors with a niche interest". Just because you have a narrow set of topics you edit does not mean that you should be treated any differently assuming you are abiding by policies. It may often be an indicator of disruptive editors but it's not really a blanket attribute. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 19:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Question: I've assembled a set of questions for the 12 candidates listed
here. The questions are intended to see how you would respond to situations you will probably encounter if elected. I've picked one question for each candidate listed at the link above; the other questions can be seen
here. Please feel free to answer only the selected question below, or all of them if you chose. Your question is what would you do in the following situation?: "You disagree with an action taken by a clerk and tensions rise as a result".
Carcharoth (
talk) 05:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- A: While I haven't dealt with many clerks in their actual capacity assisting the Committee, they all seem like nice chaps outside of it, so I would hope there wouldn't be many of these issues :) Assuming however that I did have a disagreement with a clerk in that role (something like closing cases or requests before I felt it should be done, etc.) I'd bring it to the clerk's attention (discretely if at all possible) and try and work out our issues. If we're unable to reach some common ground or resolve the tensions, I'd solicit advice from the other arbitrators. Unless the clerk has broken policy or something similar, I don't see any reason for on-wiki bickering. Arbs shouldn't be harboring grudges or disagreements with clerks because it inhibits the ability for the Committee to operate smoothly and effectively. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 17:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
David Fuchs
Many people who don't haunt WP:FAC, WP:GAN, or WP:PR probably don't know me. I joined Wikipedia sometime back in 2005, became an admin in 2007, and have been editing fairly consistently since (for those history-minded chaps out there, I was also a runner-up in the 2007 ACE). I'll keep this stuff short, because I imagine the questions are where the real action happens.
My belief is that we should all be here to—in some way or form—create an encyclopedia, and all of ArbCom's actions should be mindful of that. Fostering a site that allows editors to work diligently means having an Arbitration Committee that acts fairly, quickly, and prudently. If elected, this would be my aim.
Username business: I for a short time operated an alt account, Derklin, intending to use that as my cleanup and anti-vandalism account. I realized that this idea was a waste of time and energy and haven't used it in a long time. Other than that, I've always gone by this moniker onwiki.
- David Fuchs ( talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
|
|
Arbitration Committee Election 2019 candidate:
David Fuchs
|
General questions
- Skills/interests: Which of the following tasks will you be prepared and qualified to perform regularly as an arbitrator? Your responses should indicate how your professional/educational background makes you suitable to the tasks.
- (a) reviewing cases, carefully weighing up the evidence, and voting and commenting on proposed decisions;
- (b) drafting proposed decisions for consideration by other arbitrators;
- (c) voting on new requests for arbitration (on the requests page) and motions for the clarification or modification of prior decisions;
- (d) considering appeals from banned or long-term-blocked users, such as by serving on the Ban Appeals Subcommittee or considering the Subcommittee's recommendations;
- (e) overseeing the allocation and use of checkuser and oversight permissions, including the vetting and community consultation of candidates for them, and/or serving on the Audit Subcommittee or reviewing its recommendations;
- (f) running checkuser checks (arbitrators generally are given access to CU if they request it) in connection with arbitration cases or other appropriate requests;
- (g) carrying out oversight or edit suppression requests (arbitrators are generally also given OS privileges);
- (h) drafting responses to inquiries and concerns forwarded to the Committee by editors;
- (i) interacting with the community on public pages such as arbitration and other talk pages;
- (j) performing internal tasks such as coordinating the sometimes-overwhelming arbcom-l mailing list traffic.
- A: To me an arbitrator isn't much use if they aren't reviewing cases, weighing evidence, workshopping decisions, and dealing with the effects of past cases (appeals, clarifications, etc.) My real-world responsibilities constantly require dialogue and problem-solving with education members and boards, and so that's what I'm most comfortable with. In addition to my OTRS work, I'd be interested in helping field questions from the community and make sure interested editors are as involved and aware of what ArbCom is doing as possible. Unless necessary, I can't imagine how much I would get out of having CU/OS bits. The less people we have to have with those tools, the better.
- Stress: How will you be able to cope with the stress of being an arbitrator, potentially including on- and off-wiki threats and abuse, and attempts to embarrass you by the public "outing" of personal information?
- A: People who spend a lot of time trying to out me are going to be incredibly bored, I suspect (especially since I've made it pretty easy). Dealing with criticism and abuse is something everyone has to handle, and I find the best response is often a smile, a joke, and moving on. Taking oneself too seriously only sets one up for more stress than they need. I've never had to leave Wikipedia for any time due to workload, and even with ArbCom chores I don't see that being an issue.
- Principles: Assume the four principles linked to below are directly relevant to the facts of a new case. Would you support or oppose each should it be proposed in a case you are deciding, and why? A one- or two-sentence answer is sufficient for each. Please regard them in isolation rather than in the context of their original cases.
- (a)
"Private correspondence"
- A: General support. Excerpting or summarizing emails is often permissible (legally and ethically), but there is a tacit agreement to privacy between the recipients that I feel should be upheld save for extenuating circumstances.
- (b)
"Responsibility"
- A: Support fully. If you have to think twice before doing an action, it's probably not the right choice to take.
- (c)
"Perceived legal threats"
- A: General support again. Bringing up litigation only makes heated conflicts worse.
- (d)
"Outing"
- A: General support. Respecting an editor's wishes regarding personal information is the nice thing to do, but once the information is online it can't be redacted fully and the editors who regret their actions can't pretend that they can ignore it. (See also Lar's question 5 on talk)
- (a)
"Private correspondence"
- Strict versus lenient: Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, would you side more with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions, or with those who support a greater number of bans and desysoppings? What factors might generally influence you? Under what circumstances would you consider desysopping an admin without a prior ArbCom case?
- A: It depends, as the question says, on the case. I would as a general rule err towards offering second chances. Everyone slips up, most people slip up really badly at least once. Persistent issues mean that more strict measure are required. If an admin's use of the tools consistently violate community standards or wiki policies, a desysop may be merited, prior case or no.
- ArbCom and policies: Do you agree or disagree with this statement: "ArbCom should not be in the position of forming new policies, or otherwise creating, abolishing or amending policy. ArbCom should rule on the underlying principles of the rules. If there is an area of the rules that leaves something confused, overly vague, or seemingly contrary to common good practice, then the issue should be pointed out to the community". Please give reasons.
- A: Agree. ArbCom should be the last step in dispute resolution. If the case involves underlying issues about a guideline or practice, then it should make it clear that the community has to get together and do something to rectify this; it's not the US Supreme Court.
- Conduct/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?
- A: ArbCom hasn't and shouldn't get involved in dictating actual article content. However, they can aid in content disputes by placing frameworks for editing articles and, in extreme cases, removing or inhibiting editors who are disrupting efforts at solving the disputes.
- Success in handling cases: Nominate the cases from 2010 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.
- A: 2010 was a far better year than many previous in ArbCom's handling of cases, and on the whole I cannot pick one case that would enshrine the most successful of them. My obvious reach for least successful would be Climate Change, but given how recently it was closed I'm not sure how fair that is. One thing is sure: it dragged on far too long for too little net benefit.
- 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?
- A: To me, the biggest issue in ArbCom's operation has always been the lag in opening and closing cases. More aggressive efforts at quickly jumping on cases and preventing momentum from faltering is a chief concern. Additionally, I would try and limit the number of decisions that require community watch wherever possible; the community at large has better things to do than play enforcers.
Individual questions
This section is for individual questions asked to this specific candidate. Each eligible voter may ask a limit of one "individual" question by posting it below. The question should:
- be clearly worded and brief, with a limit of 75 words in display mode;
- be specific to this candidate (the same individual question should not be posted en masse onto candidates' pages);
- not duplicate other questions (editors are encouraged to discuss the merging of similar questions);
Election coordinators will either remove questions that are inconsistent with the guidelines or will contact the editor to ask for an amendment. Editors are, of course, welcome to post questions to candidates' user talk pages at any time.
Please add the question under the line below using the following format:
- Question:
- A:
- Question: What are your thoughts on paid editing? I should also inform you that I'm a candidate too, so feel free to refuse to answer if you think it's inappropriate of me to ask.
Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (
talk) 04:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- A: I'm personally against it, but as there's no guideline or policy, the only real thing we can do is abide by WP:COI. If you're getting paid to contribute, you should declare it on your user page and/or respective article talk pages. Better yet, do that and get a neutral someone to scrutinize the edits. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 04:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Question: Was this a year and a half ago? Holy crap. But anyway, you once wanted to place
Super Columbine Massacre RPG! on the main page for April 20, 2009, the 10-year anniversary of the Columbine shootings. I pitched a holy fit about it--because why else do we come to Wikipedia unless someone pitches a righteous fit about something--and Raul eventually dropped it from the TFAR page. I conveniently have short-lived periods of righteous indignation and mostly forgot the incident, but I'm curious to know what do you think of this conflict now. Would you do the same today? Do you feel that arbitrators and Wikipedia itself have a responsibility for what it presents to readers? --
Moni3 (
talk) 05:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- A: I'd have to admit I was pointlessly churlish about the whole affair. Looking back I think I would agree with Raul's sentiments that the article was worth being featured on the main page, but not on such a loaded date. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 05:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Question: You mention that ArbCom might indirectly help the community resolve policy or content disputes by limiting disruptive editors. Sometimes an editor can disrupt the consensus building process with no obvious
edit warring or
incivility. Should ArbCom ever limit an editor's participation in
dispute resolution simply because they have no good faith intention of building a consensus? What would you look for as "disrupting efforts at solving the disputes"?
Shooterwalker (
talk) 08:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- The short answer is yes. Editors can be disruptive without edit warring or incivility; things like forum-shopping and wikilawyering can stall the good-faith efforts of others. These actions broken down might not always be in violation of policies, but they are definitely opposed to the spirit of Wikipedia's guidelines and ethos. I've seen cases like this brought to ANI, and for the most part these editors are dealt with there, but ArbCom remains a viable alternative if the usual venues are not effective.
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(
talk) 15:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough... How do you spot such an editor? Particularly when they have learned to be civil and avoid edit wars... how do you distinguish between a dispute resolution that failed after an honest good faith attempt, versus one that failed because of a bad faith
filibuster?
Shooterwalker (
talk) 16:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's hard to definitely point out such an editor because there isn't really a template they all fit neatly. Patterns in editing is one of the strongest such indicators... I know there have been occasions when I've stubbornly pushed for something that in hindsight wasn't worth pushing for (I suppose Moni's question above is a perfect example). However a pattern of these situations, combined with an unwillingness to modify behavior when (hopefully politely) confronted about the possible disruption of their actions, suggests the type of editor we're talking about. As to edit warriors, I'd say the community is pretty diligent about pointing out when people are skirting
WP:3RR with malevolent intent.
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(
talk) 18:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! That's a pretty reasonable way of looking at it. Good luck! Shooterwalker ( talk) 18:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's hard to definitely point out such an editor because there isn't really a template they all fit neatly. Patterns in editing is one of the strongest such indicators... I know there have been occasions when I've stubbornly pushed for something that in hindsight wasn't worth pushing for (I suppose Moni's question above is a perfect example). However a pattern of these situations, combined with an unwillingness to modify behavior when (hopefully politely) confronted about the possible disruption of their actions, suggests the type of editor we're talking about. As to edit warriors, I'd say the community is pretty diligent about pointing out when people are skirting
WP:3RR with malevolent intent.
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(
talk) 18:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough... How do you spot such an editor? Particularly when they have learned to be civil and avoid edit wars... how do you distinguish between a dispute resolution that failed after an honest good faith attempt, versus one that failed because of a bad faith
filibuster?
Shooterwalker (
talk) 16:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- The short answer is yes. Editors can be disruptive without edit warring or incivility; things like forum-shopping and wikilawyering can stall the good-faith efforts of others. These actions broken down might not always be in violation of policies, but they are definitely opposed to the spirit of Wikipedia's guidelines and ethos. I've seen cases like this brought to ANI, and for the most part these editors are dealt with there, but ArbCom remains a viable alternative if the usual venues are not effective.
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(
talk) 15:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Question from
User:Chaser: You talk in A1 about visible work on cases.
This interview indicates that a lot of arbitrators spend most of their time on work that is not visible to the community. Do you expect to also participate in considering ban appeals and handling serious harassment and privacy related issues?
- A: I intend to work in those areas to a degree (banned users aren't exactly my forte), but I think we should still strive to be as open as possible. For the reasons Kirill mentioned in the linked interview above, some processes just shouldn't take place here (due to sensitivity or speediness issues), but the end results should be made clear. People often get upset if they feel that an action was spurred by "back-room deals" or collusion, and I think that leads to distrust of ArbCom. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 05:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Question: If you were a member of the Arbitration Committee when
this motion was presented before the committee, how would you have responded, and what reasoning would you have provided to justify your position?
–
Grondemar 18:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- A:I support most of the elements of the motion, however I do not feel that blanket amnesty was the proper resolution. Administrators who overstep the bounds of authority and trust vested in them by the community should not be given a pat on the head. Ignoring procedure for the betterment of the project is acceptable: treating the community like dirt and exacerbating latent problems is not. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 19:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Question: What was your opinion of the
climate change case? You commented on this page's talk page that you considered it akin to an ethnic dispute, which I suppose is a fair comment in some ways, but not in other ways. But what did you think of the decision as a whole, and what could have been done to improve it, if anything?
NW (
Talk) 19:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- A: I consider climate change akin to an ethic dispute in that it is a highly political area with a great deal of passionate editors on all sides; these sorts of situations are where Wikipedia has historically failed at arbitrating. Lots of admins aren't familiar with the underlying issues and are loathe to block POV pushers, sometimes there are sympathetic admins who fence troublesome editors... it can be quite messy. As to the Climate Change case, I've got mixed feelings. I think ArbCom did make the right choice by supporting the sanctions board. The more things get addressed at a community level, the better; as you mention in your question, climate change does have some small but significant differences from many other standoffish topics and the sanctions were a way of specifically targeting those differences. Deleting the userspace pages and blocking the main instigators was a necessary step in enabling more level-headed, good-faith editors room to collaborate without a cloud of ill will. Ultimately, ArbCom helped deal with not only the problematic editors, but problematic behaviors, which will hopefully bear fruit in the longer-term. My chief concern was the length of time it took to reach a decision, which exacerbated some issues: we're seeing lots of requests/challenges to the ruling, which is partly not ArbCom's fault, but could have been ameliorated with greater alacrity.
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(
talk) 22:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Do you feel that the remedies that ArbCom ended up doling out were appropriate and proportional? And to follow up about the difference between climate change and say, Israel-Palestine—in reality, there is a general agreement among people who know what they are talking about for climate change. There is no such consensus for Israel-Palestine. How, if at all, should that be taken into account for administration and arbitration purposes?
NW (
Talk) 22:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- To make sure I'm answering your question, in regards to "there is a general agreement among people who know what they are talking about for climate change"—are you referring to agreement in regards to anthropogenic warming, or the scope of the topic?
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(
talk) 23:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- My apologies. I meant the
former.
NW (
Talk) 03:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- No problem. Whether or not "science agrees" or it's a question of "right to exist"/"apartheid", you're still going to have to deal with blatant POV pushers and more subtle spin doctors. The only difference is with CC, uninvolved editors have a little bit more of a lifeline, as the subject is easier broached and understood than the tangled messes of nationalist politics. In that regard, if this were the "Israel-Palestine" case instead of Climate Change, I'm not sure the approach of community-developed sanctions would have been successful since there's no common frame of agreement. I think more helpful in that case would be the drafting of an admin or uninvolved editor's guide to help inform editors about the locus of disputes here on-wiki. Ethnic disputes often rage so successfully because there are few admins who can be considered impartial or uninvolved and at the same time understand the topic enough that they feel confident in making blocks and restricting bad behavior. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 14:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- My apologies. I meant the
former.
NW (
Talk) 03:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- To make sure I'm answering your question, in regards to "there is a general agreement among people who know what they are talking about for climate change"—are you referring to agreement in regards to anthropogenic warming, or the scope of the topic?
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(
talk) 23:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Do you feel that the remedies that ArbCom ended up doling out were appropriate and proportional? And to follow up about the difference between climate change and say, Israel-Palestine—in reality, there is a general agreement among people who know what they are talking about for climate change. There is no such consensus for Israel-Palestine. How, if at all, should that be taken into account for administration and arbitration purposes?
NW (
Talk) 22:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- A: I consider climate change akin to an ethic dispute in that it is a highly political area with a great deal of passionate editors on all sides; these sorts of situations are where Wikipedia has historically failed at arbitrating. Lots of admins aren't familiar with the underlying issues and are loathe to block POV pushers, sometimes there are sympathetic admins who fence troublesome editors... it can be quite messy. As to the Climate Change case, I've got mixed feelings. I think ArbCom did make the right choice by supporting the sanctions board. The more things get addressed at a community level, the better; as you mention in your question, climate change does have some small but significant differences from many other standoffish topics and the sanctions were a way of specifically targeting those differences. Deleting the userspace pages and blocking the main instigators was a necessary step in enabling more level-headed, good-faith editors room to collaborate without a cloud of ill will. Ultimately, ArbCom helped deal with not only the problematic editors, but problematic behaviors, which will hopefully bear fruit in the longer-term. My chief concern was the length of time it took to reach a decision, which exacerbated some issues: we're seeing lots of requests/challenges to the ruling, which is partly not ArbCom's fault, but could have been ameliorated with greater alacrity.
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(
talk) 22:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Question: In response to Shooterwalker (q.3 above) about civil editors who may be disrupting the project, you point to editing patterns as a mechanism for detecting this sort of editor. Could you comment on whether you believe
single purpose editing is a likely editing pattern for such editors and, if you do, how you would approach cases involving such editors (I understand every case has unique aspects to it but I'm hoping you can provide a general answer). Thanks. --
RegentsPark (
talk) 15:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- A: SPAs are often disruptive editors, but as WP:SPA states many are "well-intentioned editors with a niche interest". Just because you have a narrow set of topics you edit does not mean that you should be treated any differently assuming you are abiding by policies. It may often be an indicator of disruptive editors but it's not really a blanket attribute. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 19:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Question: I've assembled a set of questions for the 12 candidates listed
here. The questions are intended to see how you would respond to situations you will probably encounter if elected. I've picked one question for each candidate listed at the link above; the other questions can be seen
here. Please feel free to answer only the selected question below, or all of them if you chose. Your question is what would you do in the following situation?: "You disagree with an action taken by a clerk and tensions rise as a result".
Carcharoth (
talk) 05:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- A: While I haven't dealt with many clerks in their actual capacity assisting the Committee, they all seem like nice chaps outside of it, so I would hope there wouldn't be many of these issues :) Assuming however that I did have a disagreement with a clerk in that role (something like closing cases or requests before I felt it should be done, etc.) I'd bring it to the clerk's attention (discretely if at all possible) and try and work out our issues. If we're unable to reach some common ground or resolve the tensions, I'd solicit advice from the other arbitrators. Unless the clerk has broken policy or something similar, I don't see any reason for on-wiki bickering. Arbs shouldn't be harboring grudges or disagreements with clerks because it inhibits the ability for the Committee to operate smoothly and effectively. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 17:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)