Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates/DGG/Questions

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

---

Questions from Carrite

2. Hello, and thank you for running for ArbCom. There are a number of off-wiki venues for criticism of Wikipedia content, policy, processes, and participants. Such sites include Wikipediocracy, Genderdesk, Wikipedia Sucks!, Wikipedia Review (mark 2), and Reddit. Do you read content or participate by writing at any of these venues? If so, which? Do you feel that such sites have positive value in identifying and correcting such problems and abuses that emerge at Wikipedia or do you feel that such sites are wholly negative in essence, without redeeming value? Carrite (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

   I have never written on any of them. I read some from time to time, and I think they have the potential of assisting the positive development of WP. Their positive effect would be greater if they were more responsible. DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

2. The Wikimedia foundation began issuing site bans (“SanFranBans”) of Wikipedians deemed unacceptable for participation several years ago, beginning by making a case for such exclusions on child protection grounds, but gradually disposing of inconvenient individuals for a range of other transparently obvious reasons. These exclusions are made by one or a very few individuals with no oversight and no process for appeal. Do you feel that this growing trend of WMF permanently banning individuals from participation on all Wikimedia projects is problematic, or is this intervention beneficial? Do you feel that each and every ban so far implemented by San Francisco has been justified? Do you feel that San Francisco banning individuals for reasons beyond child protection or potential physical violence is an intervention into Arbcom's purview as Wikipedia's discipline committee? Carrite (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

   As I understand it from discussions, they are made in an extremely responsible manner, at the initiative of Trust and Safety and with the consultation of Legal. The arb com has monthly discussions with people from those teams, and there is some degree of exchange of information. On the basis of what I have seen, I have great confidence in the people involved. I only know about those cases which have originated from arb com and consequently been discussed with us; as we brought them to their attention, I obviously consider the actions justified, but I can of course not say anything more specific . DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

2. Earlier today you posted this on Joe Roe's Talk Page: "I think we need new people there, which is one of the reasons I decided not to run again. thanks for running. DGG 19:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)" What has changed in the last four hours? Carrite (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

   requests from others, and a reconsideration of whether I might add some necessary degree of balance. DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC) .

Thank you for your answers. Carrite (talk) 06:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Peacemaker67

2. Given the outcomes of the German War Effort case this last year, and the lack of prior attempts at dealing with the identified issues via the dramaboards, would you have voted differently regarding taking the case on if you had your time again?

   I think the case was eminently suitable for arb com, as it seemed very unlikely to be resolved in any other manner. And I think we were successful in helping resolve the issues. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Gerda Arendt

2. Can you agree with Opabinia regalis here?

   I see her posting as an magnificent demonstration of the need for context, rather than simply going by a list of forbidden words. Humor and satire are very difficult to do properly at WP, but she was able to do it. I can appreciate it, but I could never have equalled it. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Questions from 28bytes

2. What are your thoughts on this situation? In general, what factors do you think the committee should take into consideration when deciding whether to pursue an allegation that a high-profile editor is using a sockpuppet account to evade a topic ban? Did the committee make the right decision in this case? (Additional context here.)

   One of the functions of arb com is to deal with complaints about well-established users, on the principles that 1/ the people there are relatively invulnerable to being disliked, 2/that collective decision making by vote means nobody can be individually blamed. The problem is judging when a complaint is in good faith. Arb com members individually or collectively have no way of judging this any more than anyone else--when interaction is limited to text postings on a wiki, even the very weak human ability to recognize dishonesty is helpless. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

4. Recently an editor placed links to offsite court documents involving an ArbCom candidate on that candidate's question page. Without commenting on this specific case (unless you want to), what factors would you take into consideration when determining whether to allow or suppress similar links in an ArbCom election, or an RFA, or an AN/I report?

   As I am a candidate at the same election, I can only comment generally that I judge the seriousness of outing by whether it actually has the potential to do harm.

Questions from David Tornheim

2. You seem to have a particular interest in civility. Can you speak more to your work in the past and future towards improving civility?

   I can best point to the responses I give to challenges on my talk page: explain patiently in detail, and be willing to admit error. It works very well in dealing with people who are angry. See also what I wrote many years ago on my user page. I also point ot my own rule not to reply more than twice in an argument--if I haven't convinced people by then, I never will. As for persuading others to do likewise, it takes many years. We have gone very far from the early years, and mainly need to keep going. DGG (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

4. I have heard many editors and admins complain about significant problems with WP:AN/I and other dispute resolution forums. Do you feel WP:AN/I has major problems? If so, can you speak to them?

   I'm speaking from observation more than experience: I have never brought anything to ANI, I almost always advise people to never bring problems thereI vey rarely even comment. It seems the worst of all possible processes--it makes it very easy to rush to judgment, and it almost as easy to discuss indefinitely without resolution. What it never does it provide a fair hearing. The only things it can deal with is the obvious, that never actually need to be brought there. I do have a partial solution for ANI: clerked discussions. The proposal was supported by nobody, because it was thought to add a level of bureaucracy. I still think a little formalization can avoid a free for all, and a pile-on. . And when I came here, we had an intermediate process: WP:RFCU, Requests for comment user. It almost never actually solved anything, but it gave people a place to vent, after which there can be a more focussed process. .We discontinued it because of its lack of results without considering whether it nonetheless served a purpose. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

6. As an ArbCom member do you try to handle some disputes in a way different than is typical of WP:AN/I that you feel is more effective?

   The best thing about ArbCom is that it is very different from ANI: It is almost impossible to move too quickly, it provides for a structured proportional hearing, it lets people comment relatively free from time pressure, it provides an opportunity for trying out solutions and reaching compromise, and it provides in the end a final settlement, because it decides by a numerical ballot. Arb com does have problems to match its virtues: it cannot move quickly even when it needs to, it has never found a way to have the equivalent of an abbreviated case, it requires very broad agreement to actually come to a conclusion, and it only obtains its ability to compromise by holding preliminary discussions in private, with the inevitable effect that no one outside can really trust it. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

8. As a member of ArbCom what role might you (and ArbCom) play in fixing any endemic problems at WP:AN/I and other dispute resolution forums?

   As I mentioned above, arb com should do more to keep serious matters in its own hands. It's not a virtue to have very few cases if it adds to the disruption elsewhere. This applies in my opinion equally to Arbitration enforcement. Arb com tends not to realize that for problems which will continue to present themselves, it is not the arb com decisions that give results, but how they are applied.``

2. You had not weighed in on this RfC asking 'Should the "repetitive usage" of the term "fuck off" by an editor targeted at other editors be considered "sanctionable"?’  If you had, what would be your answer? Any further comments on that WP:RfC?

   The close to that afc said it all. I commented to the closer that their close should be of great help to future arb coms. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Fram

2. During the arbcom unban / community reban of User:Guido den Broeder, Arbcom first never announced the unban or the accompanying restrictions (never mind discussing this prior to unbanning a known troublemaker), and when things went downhill, refused to even make public how each arbcom member had voted with regards to the unblock. You are one of the members then who has, to my knowledge, never declared your position in this. This is not about making private communications public, this is bacis accountability: if we don't know who supported which position in an ArbCom decision (and preferably why), we have no way of judging your actions there. What was your position on the Guido den Broeder unban, and what (if anything) would you do differently in similar situations? Fram (talk) 07:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

   I do not really recall the case, and I do not remember if we took a formal vote. I have in general supported announcing the votes in most circumstances. Not announcing such votes is one of the over-protective practices I encountered when I joined the committee. My proposal to announce them attracted little support at the time; but I should probably follow it up, as views on the committee has changed to some degree about how much openness is desirable. DGG ( talk ) 09:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

2. Totally not a loaded question. Do you think it is a good idea for one person to investigate the actions of another person, when both persons are standing in the same election in direct competition, and when the investigated actions are directly related to that election? Bonus question: is this potential lap in judgment and self-awareness made worse when two other persons in the exact same position did the right thing and recused from the investigation as long as the conflict of interest remained?

Questions from Collect

2. Does opening a case imply that "sanctions must be applied"?

   No. We open a case to see first, if a sanction will be necessary, and if so, then to decide what it should be. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC) .

4. If an arbitrator is not disinterested in an editor (such as openly and strongly criticizing an editor's edits on the editor's talk page) has the arbitrator ceased to be impartial with regard to such edits?

   Opposing edits is not cause for recusal, unless the feeling becomes personal. The only time I was asked to recuse I did, but I first alerted the individual that my absence from the case would not necessarily benefit them--and so it proved, for i would have supported a weaker remedy than the committee decided.. There are of course situations of personal animosity which might justify recusal, but an arb should not be a person who is likely to get into such an intensity of personal conflict. common. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

6. Is it ever proper to allow an "accused" an extremely short period of time to respond to accusations made when the editor was actually far from home for an extended period, such as offering under three days to respond to several thousand words of "new accusations"? Ought the "clock be stopped" in order to allow fully reasoned responses to such "new accusations" and "new evidence"? And where an arbitrator provides their own evidence in a "proposed decision," ought the accused be permitted to actually reply to such "new evidence"?

   For all of this , it depends on the circumstances. Usually our error is more likely to be accepting indefinite delays. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Questions from Oshwah

2. Other than having the adequate technical skills and knowledge required, and having the level of experience consistent with being granted the role(s), what other specific areas, aspects, skills, and/or traits would you look for and personally want to see in a candidate who is applying to be appointed as a CheckUser or Oversighter? What specific areas (outside of knowledge and skill, experience) in an otherwise-good candidate would cause you to halt, make a complete about-face, and oppose their candidacy for Checkuser or Oversighter if you were to see or find it?

   What is needed is good judgment and discretion. This has to be judged from their prior experience at WP.

Question from Feminist

2. How can Wikipedia better communicate its processes to outsiders?

   If you mean our processes at arb com, there is no way of communicating them clearly, because we are trying to do more than we can rationally accomplish, and our work is based upon a unverbalized system of successive approximation. If you mean our processes generally, then (after writing and erasing multiple attempts at stating it) I think it comes down to the same thing. We have a system based upon the assumption that people of good will can cooperate in an ego-free environment, and we're trying use it in an environment where many of the participants do not really merit that description. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. feminist (talk) 10:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Questions from Alex Shih

2. Do you agree with Courcelles's answer to my question here ([1]), in particular the part about the level of conduct on the mailing list "should be held in an atmosphere or respect for each other, the matter under discussion, and respect for non-subscribers who are mentioned". Has this always been your approach? If yes, what will you do, if re-elected, to ensure this expected level of conduct continues to be maintained on the mailing list?

   I think that in general we have been showing respect and consideration to people whom we discuss there. However, some of the committee sometimes do make derogatory comments when dealing with persistent trolls ; I understand the temptation to relive the anxiety involved in dealing with them, but this is not my style. DGG ( talk ) 10:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

4. As a member of the committee, is it ever acceptable deceive the community unnecessarily for the purpose of presenting the committee in a better light?

   I don't think this is well worded. Of course it is by definition not appropriate to unnecessarily deceive the committee, The real question is whether it is acceptable to not tell the whole truth to the community in dealing with privacy matters, Sometimes it is necessary to do so, or the private matters will no longer be private. You are right that this can create a problem, because it always arouses the suspicion we might not be dealing with the question fairly. I see no way around this: we are the appropriate group to deal with privacy related matters, and to do this it is often essential not to release key information leading to a decision. If we did not do this, wed be irresponsible to true privacy concerns. There is in some cases no alternative but to trust us. I do not see how it can be otherwisem if natters involving privacy are to be dealt with at all. DGG ( talk ) 10:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

6. You are known for your hard stance against undisclosed paid editing, and as you explained in the statement that this was not always a popular stance shared by all members of the committee. Why do you think terms of use violations were being openly tolerated by the committee as implied? As I am under the impression that many members of the committee are still likely ambivalent about the significance of UPE, what has changed and would you care to elaborate about this soon to be announced new procedure?

   I'm glad someon asked this, to give me an opportunity to explain. The view 4 years ago was that the Foundation was placing a burden on the committee to enforce foundation rules that were not community rules; that if it wanted to set policy, it should enforce it by itself. It was felt that the committee had no special expertise here, and that effective investigation required skills the committee did not possess, The change came about as the committee realized that the community did want these rules enforced, and as it was realized that the privacy aspects made it appropriate to be within our remit. It was recognized that we did receive complaints that people had been solicited by paid editors, and in some cases deliberately scammed. Not all members of the committee want to work on this actively, and the breakthrough was the decision to involve other members of the functionaries team also, as it was a logical extension of checkuser, and as all functionaries had signed the privacy policy; this will give us enough interested people, I shall be engaged in this as a member of the committee if elected, or as a functionary otherwise, Our practices will evolve -- the only thing certain is that the coordination will by means of an OTRS queue, DGG ( talk ) 10:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Questions from Cinderella157

2. Arb policy makes a requirement for transparency and Arb cases make an explicit statement of intent to reach a "fair" decision.
   1. What are, in your opinion, the "principles and spirit" (per WP:5P5) that underpin the policy and statement?
   2. The policy in particular, requires "detailed rationales for decisions related to cases". Please comment on this duty as it might apply to you (say, as a drafting arbitrator) and the committee as a whole, in respect to how this duty is discharged (noting the underlying principles), particularly where the evidence presented might be in conflict.
   3. Do you consider that this duty has been complied with and what might you do to improve compliance?

   I think we do try to explain. Sometimes the explanation is in the proposed decision page. .

4. There is something of a theme in questions regarding civility (and personal attacks). My question pertains to the conduct of cases (starting at the request phase) and not to cases about civility and personal attacks. I note that an ArbCom case is a place to address grievances and it is appropriate to make reasonable allegations in "good faith" supported by links. WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL is relevant.
   1. What actions would you take if you became aware of an editor making statements in a case that contained derogatory gender-related comments by way of commentary?
   2. What actions would you take if you became aware of an editor making statements/submissions (such as evidence) in a case that were a significant misrepresentation of context? While this is uncivil, in such a context, I believe that it might rise to the level of a personal attack by virtue of the potential consequences if the statement/submission is taken at face value.
   3. While Arbs are not infallible, the community endowers Arbs with significant power and trust, and with virtually no recourse. What would be your expectations and your actions where an Arb has made an uncivil comment (rising to the level of a personal attack) openly in the course of a case?

   (1 and 2) We have deliberately delegated much of this to the Clerks; this has proved quite successful. But the point of arb com is that the arbs can and do use their independent judgment. (3) of course there is recourse--we are often asked to amend the decisions in a case ,and often we do. But with respect to appeals,, all appeals would come before some other group of humans , who would also be fallible. At some point someone has to take final responsibility. DGG ( talk ) 10:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

6. In my assessment of Civil POV pushing: this behaviour is not readily apparent to those not affected; it requires a "body" of evidence over an extended period to establish a case; and, ArbCom has a poor record in dealing with it – perhaps, because of the dealing with the amount of evidence to sift through or because restrictions on the size of submissions. Please comment, with any insights or solutions you might offer. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk)