Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/David Fuchs/Questions

Questions from Lar

 * Note to readers:
 * This is a copy of User:Lar/ACE2010/Questions. These questions were taken from last year and the year before and modified to fit changes in circumstance.


 * Notes to respondents:
 * In some cases I am asking about things that are outside ArbCom's remit to do anything about. I am interested in your thoughts even so.
 * Note also that in many cases I ask a multi part question with a certain phrasing, and with a certain ordering/structure for a reason, and if you answer a 6 part question with a single generalized essay that doesn't actually cover all the points, I (and others) may not consider that you actually answered the question very well at all.
 * It is also Not Helpful to answer "yes, yes, no, yes" (because you are expecting people to count on their fingers which answers go with which questions...) go ahead and intersperse your answers. We'll know it was you. No need to sign each part unless you want us to know which parts you answered when.
 * For those of you that ran last year (or the year before, etc.), feel free to cut and paste a previous year's answers if you still feel the same way, but some of the questions have changed a bit or expanded so watch out for that.
 * Where a question overlaps one of the standard questions I have tried to note that and explain what elaboration is desired.


 * The questions

Submitted 03:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC) by ++Lar: t/c
 * 1) Is the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? In particular, how do you feel about the following suggestions:
 * a) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.
 * b) "Default to Delete" - If a BLP AfD or DRv discussion ends up as "no consensus" the default is to delete. A clear consensus to KEEP is required, else the article is removed.
 * c) "Liberal semi protection" - The notion that if a BLP is subject to persistent vandalism from anons it should get semi protection for a long time (see User:Lar/Liberal Semi ... we were handing out 3 months on the first occurance and 1 year for repeats)
 * d) "WP:Flagged Protection" - a trial, which ended up being called WP:Pending changes instead. Please comment on the trial results as they specifically relate to the BLP problem. (there is another question about revisions generally) Would you do anything different in the actual implementation?
 * e) "WP:Flagged Revisions" - the actual real deal, which would (presumably) be liberally applied.
 * I don't really feel Opt Out is ever going to be fair, because if someone's notable (and notable enough to have the coverage for an article), there's no way of making a bright line and saying "this guy's too notable". I generally feel that defaulting to delete in marginal cases is a good idea, but unfortunately the quality of AfDs is so heterogenous that I can't support it totally. Given how much flak admins often get for really weighing strength of arguments rather than pure numbers, this wouldn't end too well. Liberal semi protection is something I've often used on the BLPs on my watchlist, given that I am one of the few major and regular contributors to them; it could be many hours between my editing sessions that bad vandalism could slip by, and semi is a quick and simple way to lower the chances of that happening. I support the idea of flagged protection/revisions in general. My experience with Pending Changes wasn't enough to sway me either way as the articles on my watchlist chosen for the trial didn't really seem to need it that badly. I would in the future like to see at least open and easy implementation of FlaggedProtection, and hopefully if we can keep the ball rolling FlaggedRevs as well.
 * 1) Given that it is said that the English Wikipedia ArbCom does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that ArbCom does not decide content questions:
 * a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?
 * b) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?
 * c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.
 * Note: this question has some overlap with #5 and #6 in the general set but goes farther. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate.
 * It's a matter of policy. I don't think ArbCom should take to dictating terms, but if a case results from nebulous language in a policy or the lack of any appropriate guide, than they should make it clear this is something the community should work on; their past efforts have I believe been well-intentioned but inconsistent. With regards to part c), I assume "the BLP approach" is the philosophy expressed by the list above, in which case I don't agree in every respect, but as an ArbCom member it's not my place to try and change it. My ideal approach to BLP would be simply to take every article, source it if it's not already, decide whether it's notable, and then delete or keep at that point. As Linus might say: "I never thought it was such a bad little BLP. It's not bad at all, really. Maybe it just needs a little love."
 * 1) It has been said that the English Wikipedia has outgrown itself, that the consensus based approach doesn't scale this big. Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you agree, what should be done about it? Can the project be moved to a different model (other wikis, for example, use much more explicit voting mechanisms)? Should it be? Consider the controversy around some election provisions... we had an RfC on the topic early this year, but by the election we still didn't have closure on some open questions. Does the recent adoption of Secure Poll for some uses change your answer?
 * Note: there may possibly be some overlap with #7 and #8 in the general set but it's really a different tack. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate.
 * I honestly think this is a myopic view of Wikipedia. It was hard work getting anything done in 2005, and I bet it was still pretty hard even when it was just five people writing back in the early days. The problems with scale arise from getting everyone to the proper venues at the same time, and in this respect gathering momentum can be difficult. As much as pure voting would solve many problems, it would also exacerbate still more; what works on another language will not apply to the largest one.
 * 1) Please discuss your personal views on Sighted/Flagged revisions/Pending Changes. What did you think of the trial? Should we ultimately implement some form of this? What form? Do you think the community has irretrievably failed to come to a decision about this? Why? What is the role, if any, of ArbCom in this matter? What is the reason or reasons for the delay in implementing?
 * Mostly going on what I've said above, I think overall it's a good idea that, selectively used, will be a net positive to the quality and management of Wikipedia's content. I think ultimately there is a general support for these measures, but a lot of the problems arose from people who were on the fence being leery of changes to the terms of the poll. For better or worse, it's going to take a while for people to get used to the idea as a permanent part of the article management arsenal. As stated earlier, ArbCom can't force this change to go any faster, even if some of its members (or possible members :P) think it's a great idea.
 * 1) Wikipedia was founded on the principle that anonymity, or at least pseudonymity, is OK. You do not need to disclose your real identity, if you do not wish to, to edit here. You are not forbidden from doing so if you wish.
 * a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?
 * b) If you do not support it, is there a way to change it at this late date? How? Should it be (even if you do not support it, you may think it should not be changed)?
 * c) With anonymity comes outing. Lately there has been some controversy about what is outing and what is not... if someone has previously disclosed their real identity and now wishes to change that decision, how far should the project go to honor that? Should oversight be used? Deletion? Editing away data? Nothing?
 * d) If someone has their real identity disclosed elsewhere in a way that clearly correlates to their Wikipedia identity, is it outing to report or reveal that link? Why or why not?
 * e) Do you openly acknowledge your real identity? Should all Arbitrators openly acknowledge their real identity? Why or why not? If you are currently pseudonymous, do you plan to disclose it if elected? (this is somewhat different than Thatcher's 1C from 2008 in that it's more extensive)
 * f) Does the WMF make it clear enough that pseudonymity is a goal but not a guarantee? What should the WMF be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity? What should ArbCom be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity?
 * g) If an editor clearly and deliberately outs someone who does not wish to be outed, what is the appropriate sanction, if any? Does the question differ if the outing occurs on wiki vs off-wiki? (this is somewhat similar but different from Thatcher's 1D from 2008)
 * Anonymity is fine. However, anonymity does not equal a magic cloak. Anonymity doesn't let you get away with POV pushing, it doesn't let you claim whatever credentials you want, it doesn't allow you to manipulate discussions for your own gain, and it doesn't let you hound without fear of retribution editors who are not hiding behind a screen name. If you gave your name once and realized it was a bad idea... it's unfortunate, but you cannot expect the community to cover for you (although if it is your wish it would be the nice thing for them to refrain from dredging it up.) With very few exceptions, the buck stops with the editor in question. Save for these special circumstances (the only one coming to my mind ATM is underage editors) ArbCom shouldn't be involved. I openly acknowledged my identity from my first edits to Wikipedia, and personally I feel that's the best route to go, but then again I'm not working with sensitive information, at an employer that could be besmirched somehow by my actions, et al. Sometimes it's appropriate to divorce the screen name from the real person, but I've found in most cases this rule applies, and the easiest way to prevent it is to associate yourself with your actions (it's a personal maxim, not one I'd apply for the whole wiki).
 * 1) Stalking is a problem, both in real life and in the Wikipedia context.
 * a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?
 * b) What responsibility, if any, does WMF have to try to prevent real life stalking? What aid, if any, should the WMF give to someone victimised. Balance your answer against the provisions of the privacy policy.
 * c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
 * d) What special provisions should be made, if any, to deal with stalkers who are using Wikipedia to harass victims? Consider the case where the stalkee is a real life person and the harassment is done by manipulating their article, as well as the case where the stalkee is an editor here.
 * e) Where is the line between stalking or harassing an editor and reviewing the contributions of a problematic editor to see if there are other problems not yet revealed?
 * f) Are there editors who overplay the stalking card? What's to be done about that?
 * Note: this also ties in with #3(d) in the general set but drills in a lot farther. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate but I expect just referencing it with no further elaboration won't be sufficient.
 * In the magical land of pixie dust, people would realize that what gets sent out on the internet has a way of coming back to haunt you. Were it so easy. Wikipedia should make it clear when registering a name that given the nature of the site, there are certain eventualities that must be weighed. Even if a good editor has been hounded, offering them a form of protection (i.e., a new online identity) only goes so far; they should be made aware that continuing editing patterns will most likely lead to the end of that anonymity, beyond which the ArbCom or anyone else cannot be held responsible. (There's a reason witness protection doesn't allow people to continue their past occupations.) The community, including admins and ArbCom, should do anything within their power to stop harassment and stalking on-wiki. Off-wiki, there's unfortunately little ArbCom can do—it falls into the purview of organizations like the WMF, who can be more proactive at stemming the root causes by real-world action. With all that said, I don't consider digging through someone's contribs to necessarily fall under stalking—it's a public history for a reason, and maintaining that people shouldn't look at public logs... just doesn't make much sense.
 * 1) A certain editor has been characterized as "remarkably unwelcome" here, and the "revert all edits" principle has been invoked, to remove all their edits when discovered. In the case of very unwelcome and problematic editors, do you support that? What about for more run of the mill problem editors? What about in the case of someone making a large number of good edits merely to test this principle? Do you think blanket unreverting removed edits is appropriate or would you suggest that each edit be replaced with a specific summary standing behind it, or some other variant?
 * I fully support reversion. If there's a good reason for the editors being "remarkably unwelcome", then it's a good idea to make them feel that way. If the reason is less than perfect, new discussion needs to take place to refactor that view. The community shouldn't be forced to filter through contributions to glean good scraps from the "unwelcome" whole.
 * 1) What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:
 * a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?
 * b) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?
 * c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?
 * d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not (in each case)?
 * e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )
 * f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?
 * Ideally all Wikipedia critiques from the community should remain on Wikipedia. I think that the utility of Wikipedia Review (WR) is lessened by it being divorced from Wikipedia itself; it's annoying to have to monitor another venue for information quite often germane to Wikipedia. We shouldn't have to feel that criticism needs to be hidden away on another site; by being frank here we save everyone time (I also don't like that having discussions on WR means that those who don't participate are excluded, and it tends to make things less collegial.) That said, it shouldn't be considered a strike against anyone that they participate on such sites (although their conduct may be.) I do have an account on WR, which should be fairly easy for someone to figure out with a basic knowledge of etymology. if I were elected I would feel obligated to disclose my account name, but I'm not sure I would continue to ocassionally post there—per my answer to 1a of the general questions and Chaser's follow-up, I think it's important that arbs make their best effort to communicate what they can onwiki. Other than that, I have on occasion written some posts about Wikipedia on Associated Content, but most of what I have to say about Wikipedia can be found here. (rewritten 00:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC))
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with vested contributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * Yes, but more so because there are clusters of editors around said "vested contributor" who think that said contributor should be given more slack. Unfortunately I don't see a way to really deal with this at a basic level; ArbCom, meanwhile, should do its part by treating editors equally.
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with factionalism? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * In some areas of the wiki, there's really no sort of factionalism... and then there are areas like global warming and pretty much any ethnic divide. Yes, factionalism exists, and if you spend too much time haunting ArbCom cases you'll definitely start thinking that it's everybody against everyone else. The best way for ArbCom to deal with this is to target behaviors rather than users; because these issues are so divisive, there will always be another editor to replace the one you've banned, so being more general and discretionary is the only real option.
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :) If you answered this question last year, has your answer changed? :) :) :) If so, why? :) :): ): :)
 * I tend to look best in blue, so I suppose that's as good an answer as any :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 05:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ideally all Wikipedia critiques from the community should remain on Wikipedia. I think that the utility of Wikipedia Review (WR) is lessened by it being divorced from Wikipedia itself; it's annoying to have to monitor another venue for information quite often germane to Wikipedia. We shouldn't have to feel that criticism needs to be hidden away on another site; by being frank here we save everyone time (I also don't like that having discussions on WR means that those who don't participate are excluded, and it tends to make things less collegial.) That said, it shouldn't be considered a strike against anyone that they participate on such sites (although their conduct may be.) I do have an account on WR, which should be fairly easy for someone to figure out with a basic knowledge of etymology. if I were elected I would feel obligated to disclose my account name, but I'm not sure I would continue to ocassionally post there—per my answer to 1a of the general questions and Chaser's follow-up, I think it's important that arbs make their best effort to communicate what they can onwiki. Other than that, I have on occasion written some posts about Wikipedia on Associated Content, but most of what I have to say about Wikipedia can be found here. (rewritten 00:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC))
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with vested contributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * Yes, but more so because there are clusters of editors around said "vested contributor" who think that said contributor should be given more slack. Unfortunately I don't see a way to really deal with this at a basic level; ArbCom, meanwhile, should do its part by treating editors equally.
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with factionalism? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * In some areas of the wiki, there's really no sort of factionalism... and then there are areas like global warming and pretty much any ethnic divide. Yes, factionalism exists, and if you spend too much time haunting ArbCom cases you'll definitely start thinking that it's everybody against everyone else. The best way for ArbCom to deal with this is to target behaviors rather than users; because these issues are so divisive, there will always be another editor to replace the one you've banned, so being more general and discretionary is the only real option.
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :) If you answered this question last year, has your answer changed? :) :) :) If so, why? :) :): ): :)
 * I tend to look best in blue, so I suppose that's as good an answer as any :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 05:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :) If you answered this question last year, has your answer changed? :) :) :) If so, why? :) :): ): :)
 * I tend to look best in blue, so I suppose that's as good an answer as any :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 05:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I tend to look best in blue, so I suppose that's as good an answer as any :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 05:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions from Sven Manguard
I decided to ask these questions after reflecting on an hour long conversation over the IRC with an editor that I hold in very high regard. I intermixed her concerns with my own concerns to form this short list of general questions. Please answer them truthfully, and draw upon whatever experiences or knowledge you possess. I apologize in advance for all the questions being compound questions. Thanks in advance, sincerely, Sven Manguard  Talk


 * 1) What is the greatest threat to the long term survivability or viability of Wikipedia? If the threat is currently affecting Wikipedia, what actions can be done to limit it? If the the threat is not yet affecting the project, what actions can be taken to keep it that way? What is the overall health of the project today?
 * A. Wikipedia has always been threatened by the issues of knowledge works, and user-contributed content sites, and web sites in general; things like attrition, scaling, management, finances. I don't enjoy speculating too much on how it's doing or where it's going, but for the moment it's here and doesn't show many signs of stopping in the short term. The long game is anyone's guess.
 * 1) What are the greatest strengths and greatest weaknesses of the project? What processes do we do well, and what processes fail? What content areas do we excel at and where do we need to improve?
 * A. Overall Wikipedia articles are generally accurate and generally informative, but there's not enough highly-referenced and developed articles, recognized by WP:FA or no. Creating content is easy, but our review processes are lacking.
 * 1) What is your view on the current level of participation in Wikipedia? Does Wikipedia have enough active contributors today? Does it have too many?
 * A. It's impossible to say if we have "too much" participation or too little, because there's never really been a satisfactory analogue to Wikipedia. It's not the number so much as the quality, and given that it's a volunteer project I wouldn't be comfortable judging participation in such opaque terms.
 * 1) Does Wikipedia do a good job at retaining its active contributors? What strengths and weaknesses within the project can you point to that affect retention? Are recent high profile burnouts indicative of a problem within the project or are they unfortunate but isolated events?
 * A. Who knows if Wikipedia does a good job? Considering that pretty much every incentive to contribute to the project is internal (as in, the volunteer brings them to the table and creates their own worth) there's not too much the community as a whole can do aside from reducing environmental factors that would contribute to removing those incentives. Because so much of burnout seems to generally hinge on one issue, I'm not sure how much we can do to dissuade it. I think there's a natural ebb-and-flow to editorship, and we shouldn't see every retirement as a harbinger of things to come.
 * 1) Do you believe that the project should prioritize on improving existing content or creating new content. Is there an ideal ratio of creation:improvement? For the purposes of this question, assume that you have complete control over where the community as a whole focuses their efforts. This is, of course, a hypothetical situation.
 * A. I'd say at this point save for current events Wikipedia could stop adding articles for three months and we wouldn't suffer much. There's nothing wrong with writing new articles that comply with our policies, but what does discourage me is editors who follow bot-like patterns of creating stubs with little content on fringe subjects. These stubs are likely never going to improve and it ends up being filler rather than useful content. At this stage in Wikipedia's maturity, improving existing content and fleshing out the stubs is the great task ahead of us.
 * 1) Do you believe that Wikipedia should allow people to contribute without making accounts?
 * A. From a web usability standpoint, web page authors should make sure barriers to participation are as low as possible. Anonymous editing is quite often beneficial, and frees up people to make edits who otherwise would feel encumbered even by the act of making a screen name. I'd say it's hard to say what's more important, allowing that ease of editing (which make hook them to become registered editors and more permanent contributors) or cutting back on the flow of vandalism from those anonymous editors. Ultimately I'd pick the former (with exceptions: as we all learned from the Seigenthaler incident, sometimes unregistered contributors can do far more damage than we expect.)
 * 1) If you could make one change to Wikipedia, what would it be, and why?
 * A. It's impossible to say, really. In regards to improving content as I mentioned above, peer review and the good and featured article processes ("audited content") suffers from a lack of comprehensive reviews by knowledgeable reviewers and an inability to scale; even if more people were creating good content, right now the pipelines can't handle more than the current load. I'm not sure how we can solve that problem. On the other hand, recent developments make me more confident that at least featured articles are getting more scrutiny at review, and the Good Article sweeps were a monumental undertaking that ultimately dramatically improved the quality of a significant segment of our articles.  Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom election questions from Rschen7754
Due to the changed format of this year's election questioning, I have removed all the questions that are covered by the general election questions (but please be sure to answer those thoroughly!) If you wouldn't mind answering the following brief questions that evaluate areas not covered by the general questions, that would be great!

Thank you. Rschen7754 07:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) What are your views on a) WP:COMPETENCE  b) WP:NOTTHERAPY?
 * I agree with the mantra "Competence is required", for the most part. People should realize they don't know everything; while experts are hardly infallible, we have to remember that most of us are just armchair enthusiasts and we might not have all the knowledge we need for some tasks. In those cases it's better to hang back rather than jump in and make messes others have to clean up. The flip side is that pretty much every new editor (myself included), does things like not pay attention to policies, create non-notable pages because the information is "useful", et al. If those new editors aren't given some slack, we're shooting ourselves in the foot down the road. WP:COMPETENCE, married with WP:BITE, is a sensible approach to editing. As to NOTTHERAPY, I agree almost fully. First and foremost we're supposed to be making an encyclopedia. That means tolerance of cliques, best friend clubs and processes should extend only to the point where they are moving towards that goal. Wikipedia can't practice psychiatry and shouldn't.
 * 1) Do a group of editors focusing on a specific style guideline or convention have the ability and/or right to impose on other groups of editors their particular interpretation of the style guideline, or their own standardized convention, even if there is significant opposition?
 * Style guidelines have the unfortunate habit of being created in a vacuum chamber, cut off from the fresh air of practicality and wider discussion. To a degree, I find that "higher-level" guidelines should supersede any smaller convention (Wikiprojects, especially dealing with fictional subjects, can sometimes have a myopic and excessively enamored view of their subject matter that leads to violation of policies and such). But ultimately the question of who is "right" comes down to who has the consensus and stronger force of argument behind them. In asking this question did you have any specific episodes in mind? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but due to the recent nature of the incident it would be improper to specify. --Rschen7754 02:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright. Well, in general, it really just depends on who's got the stronger consensus. Nobody should be mucking with articles they know nothing about when there's little reason to; sometimes sacrificing some template uniformity is better if it means we all get along better. Style changes should be done in a top-down fashion with everyone involved; otherwise someone or some group is gonna' get burned. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 02:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Question from Offliner
Do you believe the nationalities of Wikipedia's editors are fairly represented in the current ArbCom? Could you please reveal your own nationality? If you do not wish to reveal your exact nationality, could you at least state whether you are from an anglophone country? Offliner (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't know how well all nationalities are represented are ArbCom, but I would assume that it's strongly slanted towards British/North American editors. I can't say that I would change that trend: I hail from the U.S. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)