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

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

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 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]

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.
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]

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]

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?

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. 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]

Which recent unblock discussion (anywhere, AN/ANI/CAT:RFU/UTRS/etc) are you most proud of your contribution to, and why?

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).

Ought Arbitrators who have been personally involved in any way concerning the facts of a case recuse themselves from any related cases?
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?
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?

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]