Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/Roger Davies/Questions

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.

General questions

 * 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.
 * 1) Strict versus lenient decisions: 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?
 * 2) ArbCom and policies: 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.
 * 3) ArbCom and 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.
 * 4) ArbCom and motions:
 * a) 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.
 * b) 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?
 * c) There were a number of controversial motions this year. Please identify a few motions from 2011 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.
 * 1) Private information: In light of the mailing list leak:
 * a) 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?
 * b) 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?
 * c) 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?
 * d) 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?
 * e) If your real identity is not already widely known, do you intend to publicly identify yourself if elected?
 * 1) 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?
 * 1) 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 "vested contributors"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
 * b) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with factionalism? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
 * 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?
 * 1) Reflection on 2011 cases: Nominate the cases from 2011 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.
 * 2) 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?
 * d) 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?
 * e) If your real identity is not already widely known, do you intend to publicly identify yourself if elected?
 * 1) 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?
 * 1) 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 "vested contributors"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
 * b) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with factionalism? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
 * 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?
 * 1) Reflection on 2011 cases: Nominate the cases from 2011 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.
 * 2) 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?
 * b) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with factionalism? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
 * 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?
 * 1) Reflection on 2011 cases: Nominate the cases from 2011 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.
 * 2) 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?
 * 1) Reflection on 2011 cases: Nominate the cases from 2011 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.
 * 2) 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?
 * 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?
 * 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?

Individual questions
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:

Questions from Cube lurker

 * 1) Question: Within the past year you made at least one unblock with a log notation that you knew was not factualy correct. (Diff available if requested).  What is your criteria for when you feel it's acceptable for sitting arbitrators to give the community information that they know is not true?

Questions from Russavia
There is a still open RfC at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification. As evidenced at this request, there are numerous admins and editors who have serious doubts over the Committee's unblocking of what is suspected, with a high level of good faith and WP:DUCK evidence, to be a banned disruptive sockpuppet. Do you think it is appropriate that after nearly a month and a half:


 * 1) the community is still none the wiser as to what exactly lead this sockpuppet to be unblocked? Your answer to this question is important, as the Committee has not indicated that there were any privacy concerns requiring this unblock to have been dealt with in secret.
 * 2) of being asked to identify themselves, those responsible for approving the unblock have still yet to do so, let alone follow a Committee members suggestion a month ago that those responsible for the unblock should be commenting?
 * 3) there is still no clear answer as to why an editor is told by the Committee that future concerns in relation to the editor should be taken to the community, with a heads up to the Committee (I still have the email from 24 September as evidence of this), whilst the clarification request is indicating that the Committee will deal with all future issues in relation to this editor? Despite the email from 24 September saying that the editor in question is not under any "protection" from the Committee, once could reasonably assume that this is the case, or...
 * 4) the Committee refuses to explicitly acknowledge that it may have erred in this case, and given lack of Committee response turn it back to the Community to deal with?

The last question is especially important as there are numerous uninvolved admins and admins who have previously dealt with the user in question, who are too "afraid" of going over the Committee's head, even in the face of evidence; if one assumes ownership of a problem as the current Committee has, then surely the current Committee must also assume ownership of their actual ownership of the problem possibly being part of said problem. If one looks at the answers thus far given at the request from arbiters closely, one can see that there seems to be a theme amongst arbs to suggest that the Community block the editor for other current issues; all the while the Committee avoids answering Community concerns at the actual clarification request. However, the other issues have only strengthened the opinion of sockpuppetry amongst other members of the Community.

As an arbiter who is seeking re-election, I would also request a response to the following:


 * 1) did you play a role in the unblocking in this particular case? If so, please explain your role, and whether you involved or not in the unblock, were you in favour of the unblock in subsequent discussions?
 * 2) depending on the outcome of that clarification request, and of course your re-election bid, if re-elected what will you do as an individual arbiter to prevent such things from occurring in the future? that is, of course, apart from permabanning me or banning me from requesting that the Committee take responsibility for its actions :)
 * 3) absent the declared issue of privacy concerns, do you think that BASC should publish all of its decisions with a clear rationale on wiki for Community review?
 * 4) how important do you think it is that editors should willingly admit when an error is made, fix it, and then move on?

Questions from Rschen7754
I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide; thus, not answering specific questions will affect my recommendation. 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, and 2010; if you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those. Please note that question 3 has drastically changed from what it was in past years, though.

The first 9 questions are short answer questions. The last question is a bit open-ended.


 * 1) What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?
 * 2) Do you believe that WikiProjects can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles, directly and/or indirectly?
 * 3) An editor has made many productive edits to articles on Wikipedia, including several featured articles. This user has not broken policies per se, but is hard to deal with, giving "smart aleck" remarks, ignoring consensus, ignoring what administrators / experienced users tell them, etc. What are your views on this situation?
 * 4) An editor fails WP:COMPETENCE. What should be done in this situation?
 * 5) Do the circumstances described in questions #3-4 justify a community ban?
 * 6) Do you believe that "it takes two to tango"? Would you consider mitigating the sanctions on one user given the actions of another? Eliminating them entirely?
 * 7) When do you believe cases should be accepted by ArbCom?
 * 8) When would you vote for the long-term ban of an editor?
 * 9) If elected to ArbCom, do you plan on being active for the majority of your term?
 * 10) What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?
 * 1) Do you believe that "it takes two to tango"? Would you consider mitigating the sanctions on one user given the actions of another? Eliminating them entirely?
 * 2) When do you believe cases should be accepted by ArbCom?
 * 3) When would you vote for the long-term ban of an editor?
 * 4) If elected to ArbCom, do you plan on being active for the majority of your term?
 * 5) What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?
 * 1) If elected to ArbCom, do you plan on being active for the majority of your term?
 * 2) What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?
 * 1) What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?
 * 1) What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?

Thank you. Rschen7754 23:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Questions from Sven Manguard
Looking over ArbCom cases from the past few years, it is clear to me that many times, editors involved in the dispute being heard in a particular case use the Workshop page as a platform to continue their disputes. These Workshop posts tend to take the form of 'finding of facts that the people on the other side of the dispute have committed heinous acts, heavy sanctions for the people on the other side of the dispute, and people on my side of the dispute get off without even a warning' (it's usually less transparent than that, but barely).
 * 1) Do you agree with my above conclusion, in part or in full, or not at all? Please explain your reasoning.
 * 2) If you believe that problematic activity occurs in the Workshop pages, (even if you don't agree with my statement), what solutions would you propose?
 * 1) If you believe that problematic activity occurs in the Workshop pages, (even if you don't agree with my statement), what solutions would you propose?

Question from Tony1: Professional mediation and indemnification
Restraining aggrieved parties in emotionally charged scenarios is central to the Committee’s role, and arbitrators are in principle exposed to legal action by those parties in a real-world jurisdiction. It matters little whether an action is launched or merely threatened, and whether it is unreasonable: the costs for an individual arb to forestall a default judgment in a foreign court would be considerable (and I believe it’s not hard to transfer an order to the courts in one’s local jurisdiction). The risk is greater because as volunteers we can’t be expected to provide professional mediation as an intermediary between wiki and real-world judicial processes—mediation that might head off litigation in the first place.

Given the WMF's annual income of some $20M, what is your view on whether the Foundation should:
 * 1) set up a process for engaging and coordinating professional mediation of disputes that have the potential to morph into legal action against arbs (where requested by the Committee and where the Foundation believes the arb has acted in good faith); and
 * 2) offer legal indemnity to arbs after either a litigious party has rejected an offer of WMF-funded mediation or after that mediation has failed?
 * 1) offer legal indemnity to arbs after either a litigious party has rejected an offer of WMF-funded mediation or after that mediation has failed?

Note: I'm asking this question of all candidates, but I think you've alluded to the matter in your statement (bullets at the bottom) ... Also, I seem to remember you've a record of content writing before your service as an arb, but it's absent from your statement; could you reassure us of your experience in this respect? Tony  (talk)   13:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Questions from Thryduulf (talk)

 * 1) Are there any topic areas from which you will (almost) always recuse? If so please list them.
 * 2) If a party or observer to a case request asks you to recuse on a case before you have opined (beyond "waiting for (more) statements" with no indication of leaning), how will you respond?
 * 3) If a party or observer to a case request asks you to recuse on a case after you have indicated your support, opposition or leanings, how will you respond?
 * 4) What are you feelings regarding a sitting arbitrator being a party to a case? Is there a conflict of interest? Does the level of their involvement in the events leading up to the case matter?
 * 5) If you find yourself in the above situation, how will you ensure there is no conflict of interest?
 * 6) Should a sitting arbitrator refrain from getting involved in lower-level dispute resolution during their term? If so, why?
 * 7) Should a sitting arbitrator refrain from getting involved in policy discussions during their term? If so, why?
 * 8) In what circumstances can incivility be excused?
 * 1) If you find yourself in the above situation, how will you ensure there is no conflict of interest?
 * 2) Should a sitting arbitrator refrain from getting involved in lower-level dispute resolution during their term? If so, why?
 * 3) Should a sitting arbitrator refrain from getting involved in policy discussions during their term? If so, why?
 * 4) In what circumstances can incivility be excused?
 * 1) Should a sitting arbitrator refrain from getting involved in policy discussions during their term? If so, why?
 * 2) In what circumstances can incivility be excused?
 * 1) In what circumstances can incivility be excused?

Questions from Joe Gazz84
I would like to apologize for the late questions, I've only just gotten the time to write them. If you see a question that you've already answered or one that is similar, please proceed to answer it, you may think of a new way to explain your idea/answer. Please answer all of these questions, they will weigh in heavily when I vote.


 * 1) Can you please elaborate on what you answered above as to what needs changing? Why does that need changing? Why would that benefit the community and the committee?
 * 2) Given that the committee doesn't create policy but only enforces policy set-forth by the community, do you believe it would be allowed or acceptable for the committee to set a policy if it sees a need for one?
 * 3) An editor, who has been extremely helpful to the wiki and it's surrounding community (many good articles, helps clear backlogs, etc.) one day comes to ArbCom for breaking a rule, do you/would you discount the offense and let the user off with a "warning" not a full ban because they have a good history? Why or why not?
 * 4) How do you know what your limits are when dealing with a case? (No, I will not define "limits", please use your interpretation of what I am asking.)
 * 5) If you could sum-up your experience here at Wikipedia, in one word, what would it be and why? (This question has more meaning to it than you think, I care more about the "Why" part though.)
 * 1) How do you know what your limits are when dealing with a case? (No, I will not define "limits", please use your interpretation of what I am asking.)
 * 2) If you could sum-up your experience here at Wikipedia, in one word, what would it be and why? (This question has more meaning to it than you think, I care more about the "Why" part though.)
 * 1) If you could sum-up your experience here at Wikipedia, in one word, what would it be and why? (This question has more meaning to it than you think, I care more about the "Why" part though.)
 * 1) If you could sum-up your experience here at Wikipedia, in one word, what would it be and why? (This question has more meaning to it than you think, I care more about the "Why" part though.)

Thank you,  JoeGazz  ♂ 22:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Questions from Gimmetoo

 * 1) How should one identify when an arbitrator speaks as an individual rather than "officially"? How and when is it appropriate for an arbitrator to say what "the arbitration committee thinks"? Is it appropriate for an arbitrator to speak as an individual in a way that affects future arbitration?

Question from Martinevans123
If an editor creates multiple accounts to edit articles in different subject areas, not realising that this is in breach of WP:SOCK, how should he or she be dealt with? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. But in this case let's say there are none of those activities, just normal good faith edits on ordinary articles. Would you expect that editor to be immediately blocked indefinitely, without any questions asked? What counts as "an excessive number" of accounts? This isn't actually written down anywhere is it? Raised eyebrows indeed. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Yes, I might well have a speciifc incident in mind. But I wanted to keep this discussion at a generai level, so that I and other editors could see what your ideas were generally. Let's imagine that in this case the subject areas were quite distinct, e.g. history, cinema, fine art, poetry, and so on - a bit like the way subject portals are used in the project. Also, I understand that legitimate "undisclosed accounts" may be used, although it's not entirely clear what the justification has to be for these nor whether they should be "policied" in some way, presumably confidentially, by administrators. Martinevans123 (talk)
 * That sounds perfectly fair. Yes, it might well be odd, and probably non-preferred. But would that make it "abusing multiple accounts"? Would tagging them like that make them all legitimate? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I guess it might well be unclear. Editors do vary enormously in terms of age and ability, don't they. I guess there is no clear reason why Wikipedia need pander to some editor's "idiosyncrasies" - e.g. a different account for each day of the week. But I think the problem may be that there is still so much vandalism that most administrators have to err on the side of caution. And this may sometimes be mis-interpreted as being punitive. Anyway, thanks for all your responses. I have now already voted. I must say that I found the way you formated your responses here extremely clear. I hope you are elected. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds perfectly fair. Yes, it might well be odd, and probably non-preferred. But would that make it "abusing multiple accounts"? Would tagging them like that make them all legitimate? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I guess it might well be unclear. Editors do vary enormously in terms of age and ability, don't they. I guess there is no clear reason why Wikipedia need pander to some editor's "idiosyncrasies" - e.g. a different account for each day of the week. But I think the problem may be that there is still so much vandalism that most administrators have to err on the side of caution. And this may sometimes be mis-interpreted as being punitive. Anyway, thanks for all your responses. I have now already voted. I must say that I found the way you formated your responses here extremely clear. I hope you are elected. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I guess it might well be unclear. Editors do vary enormously in terms of age and ability, don't they. I guess there is no clear reason why Wikipedia need pander to some editor's "idiosyncrasies" - e.g. a different account for each day of the week. But I think the problem may be that there is still so much vandalism that most administrators have to err on the side of caution. And this may sometimes be mis-interpreted as being punitive. Anyway, thanks for all your responses. I have now already voted. I must say that I found the way you formated your responses here extremely clear. I hope you are elected. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I guess it might well be unclear. Editors do vary enormously in terms of age and ability, don't they. I guess there is no clear reason why Wikipedia need pander to some editor's "idiosyncrasies" - e.g. a different account for each day of the week. But I think the problem may be that there is still so much vandalism that most administrators have to err on the side of caution. And this may sometimes be mis-interpreted as being punitive. Anyway, thanks for all your responses. I have now already voted. I must say that I found the way you formated your responses here extremely clear. I hope you are elected. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)