Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/David Fuchs/Questions

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#{{ACE Question
|Q=Your question
|A=}}

Question from Lingzhi2

  2. Let's assume, and quite reasonably so, that there are some policies and guidelines that WP:IAR could never trump under any circumstances. WP:BLP immediately comes to mind, as well as other situations with real-world consequences, such as harassment etc. What policies or guidelines might WP:IAR trump? Specifically, for example, could it trump WP:CONSENSUS? How would you deal with a situation in which you felt the consensus was meaningfully wrong?
    I'm not sure I agree with your premise, in that I think by definition "ignore all rules" has to trump guidelines and policies; as such, I think it should be thought of as a last-resort option, and one which the person acting needs to be aware they can still be held accountable. It's certainly not thrown around as much these days, probably because as you note there are much more significant real-world repercussions involved. What I feel I've learned from my time on Wikipedia (and from current events) is that out-of-process or against-consensus actions often have massively deleterious effects on the quality of discussion and actual outcomes, to the point where it feels like IAR should be considered only for existential problems (some may point to WP:FRAM as one such example.) There's a great deal of Wikipedia's established consensus I disagree with in whole or in part, but I recognize differences of opinion are just the nature of a collaborative environment, and focus on Wikipedia's core mission. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Gerda

  2. I commented in the Fram case, decision talk, like this. If you had been an arb then, what might you have replied, and which of the remedies under 2 would you have supported?
    I think your view that Fram's admin rights were removed out of process is a reasonable one, in that with the case not producing conduct that would have warranted such a sanction from the WP community, the de-adminship by the WMF (to technically enforce the block) should be vacated as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 00:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, satisfied. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Newslinger

  2. When, if ever, would discretionary sanctions be an appropriate countermeasure against paid editing?
    I don't think discretionary sanctions are really a tool for combating paid editing. If an editor is a disclosed paid editor and their edits are causing issues, then a topic ban or block seems more appropriate. Such sanctions can be done with or without ArbCom's involvement. Targeted articles can be protected effectively. The community has not come to a definitive conclusion to whether to allow paid editing, so DS via general sanctions is also off the table.
  4. To what extent, if any, should the Arbitration Committee endorse the adoption of two-factor authentication on Wikipedia?
    There's no shortage of news stories to inform Wikipedians that they really need to be securing their accounts as best they can. Two-factor authentication is, though not without weaknesses and drawbacks, one of the stronger methods of account security available. I'd recommend all users enable it, not just admins, but I don't think infosec is something that's in ArbCom's purview—especially since the committee can't even enforce it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 00:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Leaky caldron

  2. You refer to a 9 years old candidate statement, assert that Wikipedia "is a different place than it was nearly 10 years ago" but continue to propose that you "think the role of the Arbitration Committee and how it should operate have stayed germane". Are these statements inconsistent and does this place you firmly as a no change candidate?
    I don't see those statements as inconsistent. The role ArbCom can or should play in Wikipedia's running remains the same as when I wrote that statement—fostering a better environment for building an encyclopedia. That Wikipedia has changed in many ways hasn't changed the core mission to which the Arbitration Committee is in service. I don't see how that makes me a "no change" candidate; I think few people would disagree that at minimum the Committee has suffered from a lack of timely action in recent situations. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 00:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Nosebagbear

  2. Once the new ARBCOM is in we'll be seeing an "RfC [with] focus on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future.". Personally, what particular questions/aspects would you want to see discussed? Along with that, many candidates note a balance to be drawn, but where would you draw a line if given the choice?
    I think most people would agree that protecting privacy is important, and most people would also say that fairness is important in dispute resolution and arbitration. The sticky issue comes from recognizing where these two goals blur and ultimately can oppose each other. I think the most important questions that can come from an RfC is what the community as a whole is comfortable with in terms of how much privacy should be given to editors so that they feel open to voice concerns or report harassment without blowback or possible retaliation. Personally, I'll posit an alternative formulation—the Committee should strive to be as transparent as possible as often as possible, so where there is a case where they do make the decision to withhold information, editors can trust their judgement. That threshold has clearly not been met judging by recent events. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Peacemaker67

  2. What do you think about the decision to accept Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort? In particular, considering the lack of prior dispute resolution attempts or attempt to use ANI to deal with the behavioural issues. Why or why not?
    ArbCom should generally be treated as a last resort, and if there's not significant examples of prior dispute resolution efforts, that's generally worth a decline and reappraisal in a few months (I can recall a few such cases during my tenure where we punted and it came back to us.) With that said, having done a cursory look over the case, there were some attempts at other resolutions before it was brought to ArbCom, and while it would be less than I'd personally want, I can understand the arbitrators who accepted with explanation. The end result I think was a) positive, in that it addressed editor misconduct and presented a way forward to ameliorating obstacles to productive editing and collaboration, and b) not a solution that could have been hammered out easily at AN3 or another noticeboard. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the banning was a walk-up start and should have been handled at ANI, but the rest has had little effect on either side of what was basically a content dispute. It was a huge time sink and the benefits were minimal because it was almost entirely about content, not conduct, and ArbCom isn't here to look at content. It has also been weaponised against good-faith editors, with a recent attempt to re-litigate it. I hope ArbCom will steer clear of these sorts of cases in the future, unless behavioural problems have proved intractable and unable to be dealt with at ANI. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from SQL

  2. Which recent unblock discussion (anywhere, AN/ANI/CAT:RFU/UTRS/etc) are you most proud of your contribution to, and why?
    I mostly spend my time focused on mainspace, not the noticeboards, but I also wouldn't characterize my contributions to AN stuff generally as an area of pride; they're generally just places you go when the collaborative process isn't working, and that's usually not pleasant. I did much more unblock discussions back on ArbCom when the Ban Appeals Subcommittee was still a thing, and despite all efforts that usually didn't lead to productive (as in editors coming back and not getting in trouble again) outcomes. I voiced opposition to Chris.Sherlock's ban appeal more recently, which I think was the correct decision, but doesn't feel any better for that (and I don't think was necessarily a complex subject.) On the whole, I'm always interested in a way forward for editors to come back and giving a chance; many of them have ended up reblocked, but at least they were given the opportunity to change. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Carrite

  2. What's the biggest problem with Arbcom? Is it fixable or inherent?
    The biggest problem with ArbCom is it's a human institution, and thus prone to our flaws and foibles :-) More specifically, I don't think there's any fixed problems with ArbCom, rather ones that ebb and flow based on the people that are on the committee itself. I would say that recently, the problems that strike me as more pronounced are slow deliberations that ratchet up tensions, and a lack of engagement on the arbitration talk pages. If I could speak to a frustration I had during my time on the committee, and which (at least from the outside) seems to have been an aggravating factor in recent controversies, it's the idea that trying to judge via perceived blowback ever has a positive outcome. Most near every time I can think of where the Committee decided to withhold information or deviate from standard practices in the name of reducing drama, it had the opposite effect. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from WereSpielChequers

  2. Are there any circumstances where you would think it acceptable to give an editor a fixed term block without telling them why or what you expect them to desist from when they return? (Yes, this is a Fram related question).
    There's always a tension inherent in the idea of blocks being preventative, rather than punitive, but a block without explanation why falls pretty far over the line to the latter. You're not going to get a better outcome out of being opaque. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I'm very happy with that answer ϢereSpielChequers 04:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Collect

  2. Ought Arbitrators who have been personally involved in any way concerning the facts of a case recuse themselves from any related cases?
    It would depend on the nature of involvement. There's no one-size-fits-all for determining when to recuse, and I think it's generally a good idea for arbs to float the issue when concerned to the rest of the committee.
  4. Ought the persons named in a case be given sufficient time to answer charges made by others, rather than have each be given the same time limits?
    I'm sympathetic to editors who are the subject of multiple other editors' evidence sections, and where reasonable I don't see an issue with allowing additional time and words to discuss or rebut them.
  6. When an arbitrator proffers specific evidence on their own, ought the accused be permitted to actually reply to such "new evidence" as though it were timely presented, with the same time allowed for such a response?
    If an arbitrator is offering evidence, they should do so as any editor involved in the case and are subject to the same requirements and deadlines for submitting evidence. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from SN54129

  2. Going by your comment that there's still a lot of open seats this election season that could do with a large crop of good candidates for people to choose from; hence, I'm throwing my hat in—now that that's no longer the case—I assume you will be withdrawing your candidacy. But until then, may I ask what a candidate who has deleted a lot of pages but made relatively few other admin actions over 12 years can bring to this iteration of the committee? [1]
    I imagine we have different standards for candidates, and how many candidates voters should ideally have as options. Leaving that aside, there was no time on the Committee where personally performing admin actions was a major part of the job, and I doubt that has changed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 01:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. How would you contextualise Peacemaker67's question on the 2018 GWE arbitration case with the more recent suggestion by one sitting arbitrator, who advised Peacemaker...Be careful that MILHIST doesn't become a place where that groupthink crowds out those who genuinely disagree, and another that MILHIST was counsel[ed]...to bear in mind that it does risk becoming a walled garden?
    I'm not entirely sure what you're angling at with this question. Any group is potentially susceptible to groupthink. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 01:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Praxidicae

  2. What are your thoughts about functionaries and other advanced permission holders discussing Wikipedia and other Wikimedians (in otherwise good standing) with WMF banned editors, specifically those who have a history of doxing and harassment?
    I assume this is a reference to BADSITES-type discussions? Realistically I don't think it's pragmatic, possible, or even a good idea to try and ban or restrict editors from free association. It's possible to not be a terrible person, and also have been rightfully removed from participation on WMF projects simultaneously. As to functionaries specifically, I would expect that they are not doing anything like divulging privileged information, as that would be grounds for loss of station. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Banedon

  2. Were there any votes in the last few years which you would have voted against what turned out to be the majority decision? If so, which, and why?
    I don't think I can give you a settled answer because while there's decisions I would question off the cuff, most of them I have not experienced as I would when I was an arb—reviewing every single diff and evidence presented, workshopping ideas, or determining problematic behaviors, etc. The recent Polish RFAR dragged on for a very long time and did not seem to have the force of context informing votes on the decision, but without reexamining the entire case I wouldn't want to state anything conclusively that I would have gone against the general thrust or specific remedies of those decisions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If the answer to the above is no, how would you have voted on certain remedies that split the current committee? Feel free to pick your own remedies; otherwise you can also choose from these: [2], [3], [4]. (Feel free to answer this question as well even if the answer to the above is "yes", although it likely won't be necessary.)
    With the same caveats as above, I agree with most of the ultimate decisions. Fram's desysop is the biggest question to me; as mentioned above, given that the desysop was a WMF mechanism to enforce a sanction that ArbCom agreed was out of line, I don't think they demonstrated in the findings of fact enough of a reason to maintain it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I need more data I'm afraid - so far, I can't tell how you'd vote if you are elected. Feel free to pick any contentious vote, any at all. You don't have to read through all the diffs and evidence, you could say "based only on the findings of fact ...", or you could pick a case request that never led to a full case (e.g. [5]), etc. I'm looking for a concrete statement on how you'll vote - e.g. in your answer to Peacemaker67 above, you've not said whether you'd have accepted the case if you were an arbitrator when the RFAR was filed.
    I'm not sure why you can't look at my actual votes in decisions for that purpose. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 10:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There's a case request today. [6] Would you accept it?

Question from Piotrus

  2. Two years ago I did a study of ArbCom, available at [7]. in which I concldued that "A practical recommendation for Wikipedia in particular, and for other communities with collegiate courts in general, is that when electing members to their dispute resolution bodies, those communities would do well to pay attention to how much time the prospective future judges can devote to this volunteering task." In other words, may Arbitrators become inactive due to real world reasons (family, job) and this is not an exception but a rule, repeated time and again throughout ArbCom history. Do you think there is any practical way to deal with this, such as, for example, asking Arbitrators to obligatorily describe, in their election process, how they plan to ensure they have sufficient free time to devote to this activity?
    I look forward to reading the paper in full. To your question, I don't pragmatically think there's much of a way to really enforce activity. The real world intrudes often, but the nature, timing, and amount is often outside of the arbitrator's control. If candidates are presently experiencing a high real-world workload I'd hope they have the good sense to not run. While on-wiki activity is a poor proxy for arbitrator activity (my on-wiki activity levels during my time on ArbCom 2010-2014 dropped heavily, but I was still active on every case, heavily involved with BASC, and drafting cases) it's probably the only useful metric voters can use. The expansion of the Committee seems to be the way the community has decided to try and offset the problem, and I'm hopeful that will help with minimal disadvantages. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Gadfium

  2. In User:Risker/Thoughts for Arbitration Committee Candidates, she says "Know what you'll do if you don't win a seat. This is an important test. Will you continue participating in the building of the encyclopedia? In what areas do you plan on working? Some people have considerable difficulty resuming normal editing life after an unsuccessful run." What will you do if you're not elected?
    I have no shortage of potential article work on my docket, so if I am not elected I will happily return to that. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Volunteer Marek

  2. Apologies for late question. There has always been a lot of complaints about lack of communication and transparency with regards to the committee. While this issue is not new, it has never really been adequately addressed, aside from the ever presented hackneyed promises during election time. The complaints have been particularly vociferous recently. Please see this proposal and express your opinion on it. Would you support something like it (even if not exactly in this form) when on ArbCom?
    I appreciate your effort into coming up with a concrete idea as to how to address the problems, which I think are fair criticisms. I'm not sure that your proposal would address the real problem though. I don't think when people talk about a lack of communication and transparency, they're talking about wanting a designated person who delivers status reports. They want arbitrators to be responsive on workshop and proposed decision pages, or follow up in a timely manner on clarification requests or emails, and perform as much of their actions as possible in the open. I do think you make a good point that most editors have not been on ArbCom and writing in an approachable way so that people can understand what the Committee is up to is something to always keep in mind; I just don't think the report system you outlined really addresses the problems you have. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 01:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Robert McClenon

  2. Some of the most important decisions by arbitrators are whether to accept or decline cases. What principles will you follow on voting on whether to accept cases that may be within the scope of arbitration, as opposed to declining the cases and leaving them for the community?
    Leaving aside whether the community's given their best crack at it and the usual venues are exhausted, the big consideration is whether arbitration can actually address the problem. There are plenty of intractable editorial disputes where ArbCom can't really do anything about it aside from a few slaps at people if they abuse process or others in the process. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 23:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Do you think that the initial T&S action in banning Fram was a valid exercise of responsibility by Trust and Safety, a completely unjustified overreach by T&S, or something in between, such as an over-reaction by T&S to an existing weakness in the English Wikipedia's sanctions regime?
    Ultimately, we're in the WMF's hands; from a power standpoint T&S and the rest of the Foundation can do whatever they want, justified, unjustified, or somewhere in between. Ultimately what reins them back is the fact that they don't have an actual product without the community, and so there's a certain level of give-and-take understanding that is occasionally tested. I think there's plenty of weakness in English Wikipedia's ability to deal with certain behavior; I don't think T&S's actions were a stellar example of either dealing with that behavior, or doing it better than the English Wikipedia.
  6. In recent years the ArbCom has almost always been significantly late in issuing proposed decisions. The current PIA4 case is an example. Do you propose any action to reduce these delays, such as either shortening the delay between closing of the workshop and posting of the proposed decision, or providing a longer target date?
    Unfortunately I don't think there's any solution to the lag in proposed decisions other than arbs actually putting in more effort to commit to their timetables. That's partially the drafter's fault, but I recall several cases where arbitrators basically waited until the proposed decision to start reading evidence, which results in haphazard proposed decisions that drag on once posted as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 23:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

  2. What is your position on undisclosed paid editing and what do you see as arbcom's role in enforcement of the WP:TOU?
    Undisclosed paid editing is verboten, and for good reason; there's plenty of ways conflict of interests can undermine content, but paid editing can be one of them. I don't think ArbCom really factors in here most of the time; COIN and the administrators noticeboards are usually quite capable of dealing with it; the only possible area where it could factor in was with potential personal information. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 23:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Grillofrances

  2. What is the single thing you'd like to improve the most in ArbCom?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019/Candidates/David_Fuchs/Questions&oldid=928580429"