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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Roger Davies[edit]

I’ve been an arbitrator for three years. This has been a stimulating and enriching experience, and I’ve learned a lot about the encyclopedia, about my fellow editors, and about myself.

I’ve heard about fifty cases, and have drafted/co-drafted decisions for ten.

I’ve participated in all aspects of the committee's work, including a year’s service on BASC and a four-month stint on AUSC. For three years I’ve been a moderator/administrator of the committee's mailing lists. I helped draft the committee’s CheckUser and Oversight procedural policy, and have supervised several appointment cycles.

I’ve served as coordinating arbitrator since July 2009, with strong emphasis on improving logistics. In April 2011, I gained support for creating internal teams to decentralise coordination, reduce dependence on individual arbitrators, and speed up the committee’s work. I successfully proposed default timetables for cases for quicker case turnaround. Average times have dropped from 60 days in 2009 to 45 days thus far this year.

For the record, I’m opposed to ArbCom becoming GovCom. As a tangible demonstration of this, I was instrumental in working up the arbitration policy, via extensive community consultation over many months for ratification. The new policy places new constitutional restraints on the committee, limiting its ability to make content decisions or create policy. It was formally adopted by the community in June, with 87% support.

Content-wise, I was very active both at Milhist and FAC. I've added significant content to five FAs, and extensively copy-edited another eight (either for or during FAC). The subjects vary from Shakespeare's Hamlet to Welsh rugby to Emily Dickinson to Maximian to the Battle of Arras. Since joining the committee, I've had less time for my first love, article editing, but I've recently re-discovered sourcing and wiki-gnoming, mainly on articles about British lawyers and French lycées.

If re-elected, I will focus on:

  1. Further improving case management and turnaround;
  2. Opening BASC membership to non-arbitrator members and separating BASC from the ArbCom mailing lists;
  3. Developing ideas with the community for a possible Administrator Review Subcommittee;
  4. Encouraging the Foundation to play a much greater role in dealing with deeply problematic users per the WMF’s new Terms of Use;
  5. Working with stakeholders and the WMF to develop a contingency defence fund for arbitrators, checkusers, oversighters, and administrators.

Mandatory statements: I have never edited from any account other than Roger Davies and (occasionally) User:Red Dragon, which prior to renaming was called Roger Davies II. As a sitting arbitrator, I am already identified to the WMF and will continue to comply fully with the non-public data policy.

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[edit]

  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?
    My Wikipedia roots lie in content work and in the Military history wikiproject. This gives me an insight into the challenges for the encyclopedia in shifting focus from article creation to article improvement.
    I've been an arbitrator for three years so I know both the processes involved (I've helped develop many of them) and understand the special problems that arbitrators face. I've worked on about every aspect of the committee's work and looked after coordination. In real life, my job has always called for a combination of hard analysis and practicality, which I try to bring to my role on the committee.
    Last but not least, I do not see the committee as a supreme court but instead a dispute resolution body of last resort serving a uniquely vibrant and diverse community.  Roger Davies talk 23:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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.
    My on-wiki dispute resolution experience is based almost entirely on my arbitration work. I have heard about fifty cases. Here are some of the cases I've drafted or co-drafted. I have contributed elements to many more.I also spent about a year on the Ban Appeal Subcommittee, hearing over a hundred appeals. .  Roger Davies talk 23:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 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?
    While every case has to be decided on its merits, I'm more tolerant of some problems than others. For instance, I have no time for editor actions which seek to damage another's privacy, security or well-being. On large-scale disputes, involving multiple editors – edit-warring, POV-pushing, incivility, and so on – there's not rarely scope for second chances as the principle protagonists on are their third or fourth chance. Realistically there's not much that can be done other than to prise the factions apart and away with topic bans. We don't get too many cases involving vandalism or socking but they often turns up in ban appeals. Many of those responsible grow out of it and move on; some turn into good contributors later. I have mixed feelings about Spam/COI blocks as these are often the result of newcomers misunderstanding (or not being familiar with) applicable guidelines: an explanation of them is frequently sufficient.
    In all instances, I am influenced by insights by the editor into where things went wrong and by promises to amend their behaviour (though I don't automatically take them at face value).  Roger Davies talk 23:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 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.
    No, the committee should not write policy ("[t]he arbitration process is not a vehicle for creating new policy by fiat"). This is right because the committee is essentially a dispute resolution tribunal and not a constitutional court. However, because many cases are about policy, the committee is well-placed to comment on policy interpretation through case principles.  Roger Davies talk 23:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 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.
    A little creative tension and good natured disagreement is not only harmless but a good thing. The problems arise when editors abandon policy and start behaving disruptively. Once the atmosphere becomes toxic, the committee can reduce disruption by providing the means to ensure policy is followed. Whether the underlying dispute is capable of resolution entirely depends on the nature of it. For instance, some nationalist disputes, backed by centuries of feuding and acrimony, are effectively irreconcilable and all that can reasonably be done is to clear out the worst culprits. Sometimes, it is sensible to propose a path that will lead to a binding solution: there's an example of this in the current Abortion case.
    Hopefully, the committee will soon not need to get even peripherally involved with content rulings as the community have started working up a Content Committee proposal.  Roger Davies talk 23:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 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.
    The committee traditionally uses four kinds of motion, with slightly different functions.
    1. Summary: this resolves a matter without a full case hearing. These are used when the facts are substantially not disputed and the matter is reasonably straightforward. Historically, these can be controversial. Usually heard in public.
    2. Interim motions: these concern the administration of a case, sometimes acting as temporary injunctions pending a final determination. (Example)
    3. Amendments and Clarifications: this is when the committee revisits a matter in which it already has jurisdiction (usually when the motion clarifies or amends the final decision of an existing case. (Example)
    4. Resolutions: these are used to set up or amend arbitration processes and procedures, they usually take place on the arb-wiki.
     Roger Davies talk 18:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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?
    When the case involves several editors and has significant disputed issues, a motion is likely inappropriate.
    The committee should not be in the business of overturning well-established consensus or properly conducted RFCs. Against that, purely local consensus doesn't usually carry much weight (either at community noticeboards or with the committee). This is usually because of the small numbers involved; or the short duration of the process, and/or the partisan nature of the participants.
  6. Unless the committee has been asked to intervene via a request, or already has jurisdiction, it does not usually involve itself. There have been historic instances in unusually large scale and divisive disputes of the committee intervening, usually to instigate an RFC.  Roger Davies talk 23:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    7. 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.
    To follow
  7. 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?
    The committee has to retain some records - in particular emails with legal implications - but most of the emails are of little long term value. Many, for example, are simply internal reminders or chasers about current matters. Little of the data is not available elsewhere (on-wiki or on the Checkuser wiki, for instance). Most of the emails we receive about cases do not contain private or sensitive information and could have been posted, with slight or no modification, on-wiki.
    From a purely evidentiary point of view, the value of the archives is not great: much of the material is unsubstantiated and/or pure opinion. If we are to act on these, fairness demands that the person it is about be given an opportunity to reply to whatever allegations are made. Some people are remarkably open in what they send (appending their full name, address and phone numbers in their signatures, for example) and potential correspondents do need reminding that we cannot guarantee to keep emails they send us confidential. (Perhaps this may change with changes in software.) A great many emails are ban appeals; these should really be hived off to another list.  Roger Davies talk 23:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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?
    It should probably be kept in reasonably accessible archives for two or three years. After that, it could go into deep storage. As we have no funds of our own, how it should be kept and who should keep it is rather dependent on what software solution is proposed to replace our current elderly set up. This is currently under discussion with the WMF. I'm increasingly convinced that the community needs to develop a data retention policy to govern all this.  Roger Davies talk 23:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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?
    Yes, much of it could and should be handled publicly. However, the main advantages of email are speed, ease of use, and accessibility, which on-wiki communication cannot come close to matching. A further advantage is that things can be discussed without interruption on a list, which is difficult to achieve on-wiki. We have talked about a publicly readable mailing list but the concern here is confidential material accidentally ending up on it (which is bound to happen sooner or later).  Roger Davies talk 23:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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?
    Our initial response was not good mainly because we had no contingency plan in place for this kind of eventuality and had to deal with breaking news as it broke.  Roger Davies talk 23:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    e) If your real identity is not already widely known, do you intend to publicly identify yourself if elected?
    I edit under my real name.  Roger Davies talk 23:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. 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?
    Yes. The WMF could be doing more to deal with certain kinds of problematic editor, especially when actual or potential criminal activity is involved; when people are exposed to real life dangers; and when the encyclopedia itself is at serious risk. These are all way above the committee's pay-grade.  Roger Davies talk 23:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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?
    The broad division of responsibilities works fine and has been tested by time. However, I would like to see much more community involvement in the appointment of checkusers and oversighters and also in the ban appeal process.  Roger Davies talk 23:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. 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?
    It's all to the good when people devote great time and energy writing about their interests, providing they do so within policy and guidelines. A problem only arises if and when they start believing that because they have contributed so much that the usual rules don't apply. I'm not sure how much can be done about this other than trying to ensure that site policies are applied fairly and consistently to all.  Roger Davies talk 18:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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?
    As defined by that essay, yes. Today's factions may not be as big as ones in the deletionist/inclusionist debate or the BLP debate but they are prsent nevertheless. This probably owes more to disembodied online discussions than to the encyclopedia itself. Absent the signals we receive in face-to-face communication, it is very easy to lump people with closely shared interests or perspectives into factions. Nothing sets up a battlefield like the hurt and anger caused by false accusations of sockpuppetry, tag-teaming and meatpuppetry. Over time, this leads to the opposing parties demonising each other and the inevitable wars break out. This will probably not go down well in some quarters but much closer adherence to civility would probably help , especially if it's combined with a general move away from impersonal communication (templates and warnings) to individually notes covering the same ground. The WMF are working on this (see below) so we'll have to see what filters down.  Roger Davies talk 18:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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?
    According to the latest WMF research (PDF) the encyclopedia has a major problem with new editor recruitment and retention. At the same time, established users are gradually drifting away as their life priorities change. For newcomers, the single biggest problem appears to be the use of templates and bots, which creates a hostile impersonal environment. (The report notes that "four of five first messages to new editors are bot-delivered, and 65% are warnings".) The growing area of concern is article improvement and maintenance; we have so many articles that an army of volunteers is needed to maintain them day to day.  Roger Davies talk 18:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. 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.
    To follow
  11. 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?
    These are some of the areas I'd prioritise:
    1. Faster case turnaround: Case turnaround times have dropped from an average of 60 days in 2009 to 45 days to date this year. Cases can be speeded up even more in 2012.
    2. Opening BASC membership to non-arbitrator members: not only will this ease arbitrator work load but it will also help the committee be more responsive to community concerns. Separating BASC traffic from the ArbCom mailing lists will also reduce bandwidth considerably. Having heard over a hundred ban appeals, I believe I am well placed to help set up its successor.
    3. Administrator Review Subcommittee: this has been discussed in various fora for ages, with no action yet. Although the community grants the tools, ArbCom is responsible for removing them. A dedicated subcommittee can explore and trial new flexible approaches - like admin breaks and mentoring - than just the current sanction-based remedies.
    4. Increased Foundation role: The new Terms of Use give the WMF real teeth for dealing with seriously problematic users, which should never have been ArbCom's responsibility.
    5. Contingency legal defence funds: Working with stakeholders and the WMF to develop a contingency defence fund for arbitrators, checkusers, oversighters, and administrators in the event of legal action. This is not only a practical measure but also provides welcome reassurance.
    6. Checkuser and oversight appointment reform: the aim is to move back to community appointments following elections instead of the direct-appointment-by-ArbCom system we use now.  Roger Davies talk 18:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Individual questions[edit]

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:

#Question:
#:A:

Questions from Cube lurker[edit]

  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?
    I'll keep this as succinct as I can. Easiest is with a timeline:
    1. On 13 June 2010, the Climate change case opened.
    2. On 30 August 2010, one of the participants {{retired}} and exercised their Right To Vanish ("RTV") as it was then called.
    3. On 12 September 2010, a sockpuppet of the vanished user, created the day the editor retired, was uncovered and blocked.
    4. On 24 September 2010, a remedy noting the RTV and instructing the editor to contact the committee should he wish at a future date to resume editing under any account name was posted along with another remedy topic-banning him from Climate change. Both remedies passed with public voting.
    5. On 14 October 2010, the Climate change case was closed and the remedies mentioned in (5) were enacted.
    6. At about the same time, the editor contacted the committee and asked to return to editing under a new account name unconnected to his previous one. After considerable discussion, the committee agreed and the user created a new account.
    7. Subsequently, a checkuser – unaware of the agreement – blocked the returned user's new account during an IP check. It was unblocked.
    The log notation is factually correct as the user had complied with the case provision about returning to editing.  Roger Davies talk 14:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Russavia[edit]

There is a still open RfC at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Arbcom-unblocked_editors. 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?
    Answering 1-4 together to avoid duplication. I wasn't directly involved in this. As far as I can tell it wasn't specially handled in secret but was a routine unblock request sent to BASC via the mailing list in the usual way. Obviously the Checkuser aspects are confidential but that's standard. There was a talk page announcement at the time of the unblock outlining the rationale. It's obviously best if the people making a decision explain it but in this instance I'm not sure how much there'd be to add. As Duck evidence is circumstantial, different people will draw different inferences from it and reach different conclusions. Certainly, there's no bar to the community revisiting this if new or more compelling evidence turns up but it's not in anyone's best interests to litigate the same issue indefinitely.  Roger Davies talk 14:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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?
    No, I didn't play any part in the unblocking. As sock detection is more of an art than a science, it's far from clear what steps can sensibly be taken to prevent differences of opinion arising over the significance of individual pieces of circumstantial evidence. Some people have an uncanny knack for making good calls but most of us do get it wrong from time to time.
    BASC usually publishes details of successful appeals of community bans but doesn't usually do so for administrator or checkuser blocks. It doesn't publish rationales for the 80% to 90% of appeals it decines. On a tangential note, opening BASC up to include non-arbitrators will give it a significantly larger membership. This expansion will not only take burden off existing BASC members but should also increase its ability to provide feedback.  Roger Davies talk 14:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Rschen7754[edit]

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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?
    Unacceptably slow, I'm afraid.  Roger Davies talk 09:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Do you believe that WikiProjects can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles, directly and/or indirectly?
    Yes, they do. Repeated visits from editors within the project inevitably move it close towards the wikiproject's housestyle, adding templates, info boxes and so forth. WikiProject drives, for instance, improve the content, refine the linking and sourcing, and move the article up the assessment scale. While I don't think that standards should be mandatory, repeatedly going against, or undoing, wikiproject consensus forged over time is disruptive.  Roger Davies talk 09:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  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?
    Although they may be productive, this kind of behaviour creates a toxic environment which demoralises those around them. This is detrimental to the encyclopedia which depends on the cooperative efforts of many. If all reasonable attempts to change their behaviour fail, they must be asked to leave.  Roger Davies talk 09:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. An editor fails WP:COMPETENCE. What should be done in this situation?
    It depends where the problem lies. If it's unacceptably poor English as a second language skills, not much can be done other than refer them to the wiki of their mother tongue. Some other problems – like repeatedly deleting stuff accidentally while editing – can be fixed by others but the question eventually has to be asked whether they're creating more problems than they're solving.  Roger Davies talk 09:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Do the circumstances described in questions #3-4 justify a community ban?
    Yes, after repeated reasonable good faith attempts have been made to fix the problems have been tried and failed.  Roger Davies talk 09:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  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?
    In interpersonal disputes, I regard provocation as grounds for mitigation (sometimes good and strong grounds) but rarely as a complete exoneration. People are responsible for their own actions and the community expects us to act with restraint.  Roger Davies talk 09:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. When do you believe cases should be accepted by ArbCom?
    When there is a serious dispute which the community has failed to resolve; when there are serious allegations of administrative tool abuse.  Roger Davies talk 09:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. When would you vote for the long-term ban of an editor?
    When they have repeatedly broken site policies and resisted all attempts at change (chronic misconduct) or when they have deliberately engaged in extremely serious actions directed at fellow editors (acute misconduct).  Roger Davies talk 09:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. If elected to ArbCom, do you plan on being active for the majority of your term?
    Yes.  Roger Davies talk 09:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?
    From a purely behavioural point of view:
    1. An increase in factions and fan clubs, focused on advancing specific causes or supporting specific editors, seeking to influence community decision making through weight of numbers.
    2. The growth of Fight Clubs made up of opposing factions, whose main objective is to thwart their opponents;
    3. Biting newcomers with reversions, deletions and impersonal templated messages.
     Roger Davies talk 09:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Questions from Sven Manguard[edit]

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.
    Broadly, yes, I do agree; it's a systemic problem. While the principle section is often very helpful the FOFs and Remedies get very polarised, filling up with allegations of horrible things that people have allegedly done coupled with lists of horrible things that should be done to them. That said, I do participate in /Workshops, and find them invaluable for knocking the rough edges off my own proposals.  Roger Davies talk
  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?
    The obvious (and frequently discussed route) would be to limit /Workshop proposals to parties and arbitrators though this brings its own problems. For instance, an arbitrator might want feedback from the community as well as from the parties, and it's better to have a centralised discussion on this rather than a split one on the /Workshop and /Workshop-talk pages. There's also the school of thought that thinks it's better for the parties to let off steam in the /Workshop than run amok in article space creating havoc. More aggressive policing by the Clerks has helped in the past, particularly when combined with short /Workshop topic bans.
    The other area which has been historically problematic is the /Evidence pages and that has responded well to reform. There's a marked and growing tendency for people to provide circumstantial evidence about character or motive rather than direct evidence about concrete actions. This can easily reduce the whole page to a mass of personal attacks, as the subject of the evidence inevitably feels compelled to respond in kind. To partially tackle this, I worked up a proposal on default evidence lengths which my colleagues adopted by resolution back in April 2010. Because they have had to focus their thinking, people have became much less inclined to indulge in lengthy conjecture. I'm sure that this – along with default case turnround times, which I also developed about the same time – has done much to speed up case handing, simply by making the /Evidence pages crisper and more focused.
    To summarise, improving the quality of input and atmosphere at /Workshops does need attention and it should be on the agenda for next year. Experience shows that simple fixes work better than complicated procedures.  Roger Davies talk 10:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Tony1: Professional mediation and indemnification[edit]

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
    This would be a very helpful step indeed and the Foundation is ideally placed to act as an intermediary. Many of the problems that arise are the result of typed (as against face-to-face) interaction. (I think it was Dylan Thomas who said that typing makes the warmest word feel cold.) If mediation can make all parties reconsider and negotiate, or alternatively better and more sharply focus the issues in dispute, I'm all for it.  Roger Davies talk 11:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  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?
    This too is a no-brainer. It would probably be better constituted as a contingency fund but it would do much to encourage new people - concerned about their legal exposure - to stand for functionary roles. This would probably need be incorporated into the Terms of use.  Roger Davies talk 11:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Questions from Thryduulf (talk)[edit]

  1. Are there any topic areas from which you will (almost) always recuse? If so please list them.
    I've usually recused on the basis of the people rather than the topic.  Roger Davies talk 18:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  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?
    I would ask them to let me know their reasons, and then consider them.  Roger Davies talk 18:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  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?
    As above, I would ask them to let me know their reasons, and then consider them.  Roger Davies talk 18:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  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?
    We treat them as we would any other party. As we have two mailing lists, we can move discussion of the case to the secondary list and unsubscribe the arbitrator party from that list so they're not privy to discussions.  Roger Davies talk 18:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. If you find yourself in the above situation, how will you ensure there is no conflict of interest?
    Primarily by not discussing the case with my colleagues,  Roger Davies talk 18:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Should a sitting arbitrator refrain from getting involved in lower-level dispute resolution during their term? If so, why?
    On balance, yes, because it's simpler and neater though, on the other hand, the Arbitration policy does say that "routine editor, administrator or arbitrator interactions" are not usually grounds for recusal".  Roger Davies talk 18:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Should a sitting arbitrator refrain from getting involved in policy discussions during their term? If so, why?
    As ArbCom isn't a constitutional court, and is prohibited under its own policy from creating policy, there's no reason why an arbitrator can't, in their personal capacity, participate in policy discussions.  Roger Davies talk
  8. In what circumstances can incivility be excused?
    I don't pay much attention to the occasional blast of exasperation from a normally well-mannered editor but serious studied incivility to goad or provoke a reaction is unacceptable.  Roger Davies talk 18:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Joe Gazz84[edit]

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?
    I've made half a dozen or so suggestions which I tried to make self-explanatory. One of my main interests is to develop initiatives with the community to jointly handle ban appeals and review adminstrator conduct. Not only will the community provide good new people to help spread the load but non-arbitrator members will also help reduce the echo chamber effect that sometimes occurs. Privacy and security issues, as highlighted with the leaks, also need urgently addressing with improved software. If you have any specific questions about individual proposals (see my statement, please ask.  Roger Davies talk 19:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  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?
    No, ArbCom is prohibited from changing policy by the policy policy ("ArbPol") that governs it. For all practical purposes, only the community can change policy (apart from the extremely rare occasions when the WMF does so by fiat).  Roger Davies talk 19:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  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?
    It's worth noting that by the time someone gets to ArbCom, they've usually had warnings. But in response to the underlying question, it really does depend which the "rule" (and there's always the Ignore All Rules rule) has been broken. I'm much more inclined to overlook using occasional cuss words occasionally than ignore say a serious incident of outing/off-wiki harassment or long-term manipulation of sources. This last one is particularly serious because it undermines the credibility of the encyclopedia and calls into question the value of all their edits.  Roger Davies talk 19:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  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.)
    What the committee can accept, what it can do, and when individual arbitrators should recuse, are either set out in policy or the subject of eight years of convention. I sometimes leave things to other arbitrators when my time is limited.  Roger Davies talk
  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.)
    Absorbing, probably. With lots of interesting things involving lots of interesting people going on in lots of different places, it's very easy to spend way more time online than you planned when you logged on.  Roger Davies talk 19:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Questions from Gimmetoo[edit]

  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?
    This is trickier than it looks:) My take is that arbitrators are speaking for the committee only when they have a specific mandate to do so. There are not too many situations where mandates exist. The obvious example is drafting arbitrators who have a limited mandate to give time extensions for evidence, add and remove parties, and so on. Otherwise, arbitrator statements/questions on committee/case pages reflect their individual personal opinions as arbitrators but the individual opinion is not binding either on other arbitrators or on the committee as a whole. Arbitrators will sometimes use "we" and "I" to distinguish committee views from personal opinions: "We discussed this and my view was ...". Sometimes, arbitrators express individual opinions in non-arbitration venues about arbitration matters: these opinions carry no more weight than an opinion expressed by any observer who is reasonably familiar with ArbCom matters, though, if the issue finds its way to the committee, the arbitrator has a vote to back up their opinion.  Roger Davies talk 17:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Martinevans123[edit]

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)[reply]

It's okay – per WP:SOCK#LEGIT – to use different accounts to edit different topic areas (though having an excessive number of active undisclosed accounts will usually raise eyebrows). The line is usually crossed when the same editor uses two (or more accounts) in the same topic to create the impression that greater consensus exists than is actually the case or to advance a personal position. In this latter example, the community has historically been very intolerant when one of the two accounts in an administrator. Extreme examples of this would be: supporting a deletion at AFD with one account, then closing and deleting the article with the admin one; or edit-warring with one account, then blocking the other party, or protecting the preferred version of page, with the admin account. The community has also been similarly intolerant of double !voting at Requests for Adminship, especially where it has happened on several occasions.  Roger Davies talk 08:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Good faith edits on well segregated topics wouldn't ordinarily cause any concerns though this really does need looking at on a case by case basis. An example of excessive segregation might be editing articles on family TV series, and having a different account for each series. Do you have a specific incident in mind, by the way?  Roger Davies talk 11:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 would be an odd way of operating and the community would probably wonder why so many accounts and so much compartmentalisation was appropriate, and why they shouldn't be disclosed. The thing is probably to tag them all as alternative accounts of each other.  Roger Davies talk 12:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
If they're all disclosed and all segregated, there's no abuse surely? But this is rather missing the basic point: the core principle is one person, one account and there are a few exceptions to this. I'm still unclear why anyone should want so many.  Roger Davies talk 21:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2011/Candidates/Roger_Davies&oldid=461760602"