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

Moved comment from #Question from User:Casliber
I've written some notes here on arbitration. My question is about the next time the committee gets a complex dispute such as Abortion or Climate Change, where arguments extend to misuse of sources as well as problematic behaviour. Do you see the role as strictly examining problematic behaviour or do you see the need to examine how antagonists are working within our content policies. If you don't see a role of examining how contributors are abiding by our content policies, how do you propose they do get examined? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the same distinction that I think you do in dividing those kinds of behaviors. ArbCom doesn't tell the community "article X should say Y", but I think that content is always an ArbCom issue insofar that if it's being added, removed, or gamed via the subversion of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, it's editor misconduct. Generally that kind of misconduct goes hand in hand with content issues. Even if it's just removing certain parties so that good-faith contributors can hash out a workable compromise to a thorny issue, to a degree ArbCom is always involved in examining content-related behaviors. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We-ell, good to see we're on the same page. I've just seen a reluctance to look at conduct WRT how an editor uses it in the past....Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)