Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for Merovingian

I'd like to give everybody here a big thank-you for taking the time to ask me questions and such. --Merovingian ※ Talk


 * I'm withdrawing my candidacy this year. I've just changed my mind about being on the Arbitration Committee.  No personal issues or onwiki problems are contributing to this decision, I just no longer wish to run.  Best of luck to all the other candidates!  Please feel free to leave questions on my talk page if you still want to talk about the ArbCom and related issues.  Thanks.  --Merovingian ※ Talk 06:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Question(s) from xaosflux

 * 1) As functions assigned by ArbCom, describe your view on the assignments of Oversight and Checkuser permissions, including thresholds for (or even the possibility of) new applicants. (Question from —  xaosflux  Talk 01:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC) )
 * The Oversight and Checkuser permissions are very powerful tools, and they can be very helpful in some Arbitration Committee cases. I fully support using them when they are necessary, but I'd rather that an arbitrator not involved with a particular case be asked to use them (for fairness).  In the event that an outside arbitrator is unavailable, I feel that it would be a good idea to seek assistance from a bureaucrat, as they are fairly trustworthy.  At this time I do not feel that an increase in the number of users with Oversight and/or Checkuser permissions is in order (but this may, of course, change with the outcome of the elections, depending on how many arbitrators will have those rights).  --Merovingian ※ Talk 04:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Mailer Diablo
1. Express in a short paragraph, using any particular issue/incident that you feel strongly about (or lack thereof) in the past, on why editors must understand the importance of the ArbCom elections and making wise, informed decisions when they vote.
 * Since the last Arbitration Committee election I have seen 11 administrators have their abilities removed, either temporarily or permanently. This is more than the number demoted in the rest of the committee's history, and Wikipedia itself.  What this shows is a great jump in work getting done.  More importantly, it shows that the committee is effectively dealing with administrators who abuse the powers we in the community have entrusted to them.  The committe has become more important than ever as it takes on more cases; the precedents it has set have and will continue to affect how we work here.  Editors voting this year need to understand their votes can and will influence what kind of decisions the committe will make.  --Merovingian ※ Talk 09:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Imagine. Say Jimbo grants you the authority to make, or abolish one policy with immediate and permanent effect, assuming no other limitations, no questions asked. What would that be?
 * I would rather not make any such change, because I believe that decisions are, for the most part, in the hands of the community. In all but very immediate and extreme circumstances, policy-making should be and stay an action of the userbase.  --Merovingian ※ Talk 09:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

3. It is expected that some successful candidates will receive checkuser and oversight privileges. Have you read and understood foundation policies regulating these privileges, and able to help out fellow Wikipedians on avenues (e.g. WP:RFCU) in a timely manner should you be granted either or both of them?
 * On multiple occasions I have read extensively about Checkuser and Oversight privileges, and I feel that I am prepared to use them should I be granted them. I am fully aware that the actions I would take are recorded/monitored, so I understand that I must act responsibly.  --Merovingian ※ Talk 09:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

4. What is integrity, accountability and transparency to you on the ArbCom?
 * I see an arbitrator's integrity as the firm, fair, and honest expression of their opinions and the use of evidence to back up those opinions. I see accountability as an arbitrator's willingness to explain the reasoning behind their actions.  I see transparency as the need to do work on top a table everybody can see; that is, an arbitrator should not be afraid or unwilling to have his or her actions viewed freely by the public.  --Merovingian ※ Talk 09:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

5. Humour, a tradition of Wikipedian culture, has seen through several controversies in recent history. This is including but not limited to bad jokes and other deleted nonsense, parody policies/essays, April Fools' Day, whole userpages, userboxes... Do you think that they are all just harmless fun, or that they are all nonsense that must go?
 * Some, such as BJAODN and parody policies, are rather harmless and, I believe, a natural way to keep the community side of Wikipedia fresh and lively, as it were. However, some things do cross the line pretty obviously.  I think it comes down to disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, even a silly one.  Userboxes certainly seem to fall into this category sometimes, as do some of the more well-known April Fools' incidents, such as the Britannica takeover, which, if I remember correctly, was added to and remove from the Main Page several times.  Another thing to consider is bad faith.  In summary, it's not bad in spirit, but some people take it overboard or exploit it.  --Merovingian ※ Talk 00:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

6. There are a lot of policies out there. Some claim that there are too many policies, therefore ignoring rules. Others think that because there are loopholes in policies that are subjected to gaming or abuse, therefore we should extend them. So, what's really going on?
 * Due to Wikipedia's sheer size, I can't help but think that it's a little of both. You have some people simply ignoring rules, which may not always be a good idea.  It's a difference between being bold and being rash.  On other hand, some users act in bad faith, using the rules against the rest of the community, essentially, as you mentioned, to make a point.  Both of these groups should be cautioned against these habits, some more firmly than others.  --Merovingian ※ Talk 03:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

@ Thank you for your answers! :) - Mailer Diablo 18:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Question(s) from maclean
Do you have any dispute resolution experience in any of the following areas: Mediation Committee, Mediation Cabal, Third opinion, Requests for comment, or Association of Members' Advocates? If not successful in this Arbitration Committee election, will you seek a position on the Mediation Committee? · maclean 06:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have often kept track of disputes over things that interest me. I enjoy taking part in requests for comment in which I genuinely feel that my discussion is relevant and helpful.  Recently, I have had a growing interest in the Wikipedia Mediation process.  I will likely become a Mediation Cabalist or Member Advocate if not elected to the Arbitration Committee.  --Merovingian ※ Talk 09:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Question(s) from Alphax

 * 1) You have openly declared your POVs on your userpage and are the most prolific user of userboxes. If elected, when would you recuse yourself from a case? Would the percentage of cases you would have to recuse yourself from render you ineffective as an Arbitrator? [ælfəks] 07:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The cases that go through the Arbitration Committee are user disputes, or boil down to user disputes. I have always tried to be easygoing and ready to compromise with other users, so I feel that I can act fairly toward multiple parties.  I do not wish to let past or current friendships or disputes influence my opinions on any given case.  That said, I would plan to recuse myself as little as possible.  After reviewing the 10 cases currently before the committee, I would not have recused myself from any of them.  --Merovingian ※ Talk 10:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from AnonEMouse
Warning: Most of these are intended to be tough. Answering them properly will be hard. I don't expect anyone to actually withdraw themselves from nomination rather than answer these, but I do expect at least some to seriously think about it!

The one consolation is that your competitors for the positions will be asked them too. Notice that there are about one thousand admins, and about a dozen arbcom members, so the process to become an arbcom member may be expected to be one hundred times harder. (Bonus question - do you think I hit that difficulty standard?) :-)
 * Yeah, these were pretty good! --Merovingian ※ Talk 00:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) A current Arbcom case, Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy is concerned with the decision of whether or not a proposed policy has consensus or not, and therefore whether or not it should be a policy/guideline. Whether or not the Arbcom has or should have the power of making this decision is  hotly disputed. Does Arbcom have this power? Should it have this power? Why or why not?
 * If the Arbitration Committee rules on the status of the proposal as having consensus or not, it is, in effect, approving or rejecting the present version of it (as opposed to future versions which may have significant changes). Seeing as how the community's discussion of the issue does not seem to be progressing toward a solution, I have to think that it is time the Arbitration Committee do something about it, especially as debate continues.  This is a special incident, which requires intervention at this point.  I have no problem with the committee having the power to rule on the status of this and similar disputed proposals.  --Merovingian ※ Talk 00:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Similarly, a recently closed Arbcom case Requests_for_arbitration/Giano barely dodged the possibly similar issue of whether the Arbcom can, or should, determine whether Bureaucrats properly made someone an administrator. (Discussed, for example, here). The current arbcom dodged the question (didn't reach agreement one way or the other, and ended up leaving it alone by omission), but you don't get to. :-) Does the arbcom have this power? Should it?
 * Bureaucrats, while trusted members of the community, are in no way above the law. Although I myself supported Carnildo, I don't think his re-sysopping was justified (purely by the numbers).  I think that the ArbCom does have the power to judge bureaucrats' actions, and should use it when necessary.  It is unfortunate that it did not.  --Merovingian ※ Talk 00:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)  Various arbcom decisions (can't find a link right now - bonus points for finding a link to an arbcom decision saying this!) have taken into account a user's service to the Wikipedia. Several times they have written that an otherwise good user that has a rare instance of misbehaviour can be treated differently than a user whose similar misbehaviour is their main or sole contribution to the Wikipedia. Do you agree or not, and why?
 * There are likely a number of completed cases that touch on the situation you have described. Two users, one a longterm good editor and another a problem user, who make the same or similar infractions should, in theory, be treated equally.  An important factor to consider is whether the users are acting in good faith.  If both are (or aren't), then they should be treated equally.  If not, I believe that the committee should favor the user acting in good faith, regardless of who it is.  --Merovingian ※ Talk 00:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) If you agree with the above point, which service to the encyclopedia is more valuable - administration, or writing very good articles? For example, what happens when two editors, an administrator and a good article writer, come into conflict and/or commit a similar infraction - how should they be treated? Note that there are relatively the same number of current administrators and featured articles on the Wikipedia - about 1000 - however, while relatively few administrators have been de-adminned, many former featured articles have been de-featured, so there have been noticeably more featured articles written than administrators made. This is a really tough one to answer without offending at least one important group of people, and I will understand if you weasel your way out of answering it, but it was one of the issues brought up in the recent Requests_for_arbitration/Giano, so you can imagine it may come up again.
 * If it comes down to one or the other, I think that article-writing is initially more important than administration, simply because much of our best material comes from a wide range of people, many of them not being admins. That being said, some kind of administrative structure is still quite essential to a project's functioning.
 * I think that when an admin and a non-admin good article writer get into a dispute or make the same slip-up, they should be treated equally and according to their behavior rather than their accomplishments and/or merits. This doesn't count, of course, abuse of admin functions (i.e. rollback, deletion).  --Merovingian ※ Talk 00:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) While some Arbcom decisions pass unanimously, many pass with some disagreement. I don't know of any Arbcom member who hasn't been in the minority on some decisions. Find an Arbcom decision that passed, was actually made that you disagree with. Link to it, then explain why you disagree. (If you don't have time or inclination to do the research to find one - are you sure you will have time or inclination to do the research when elected? If you can't find any passed decisions you disagree with, realize you are leaving yourself open to accusations of running as a rubber stamp candidate, one who doesn't have any opinions that might disagree with anyone.)
 * Off the top of my head, I was pretty put off by the Election case closed some months ago. Some of the people involved acted in what I would say was edit warring, and the committee failed to really look into that.  Its decision to have the locus of dispute monitored was fine and all, but somewhat out of step with the thorough assessment of users' behavior I usually see from the ArbCom.  Another good example is the Giano case you mentioned above, when the committee completely avoided setting any definite decisions about bureaucrat actions.  --Merovingian ※ Talk 00:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) It has been noted that the diligent User:Fred Bauder writes most of the initial Arbcom decisions -- especially principles, and findings of fact, but even a fair number of the remedies. (Then a fair number get opposed, and refined or don't pass, but he does do most of the initial work.) Do you believe this is: right; neither right nor wrong but acceptable; or wrong? When you get elected, what do you plan to do about it?
 * I have great respect for Fred, and the work that he has done for the committee. That he has such a significant role in outlining decisions is not a problem to me.  It would be nice, though, to see some of the other arbitrators share the task, because it seems like a lot of work for just one person.  As far as a limit to that, I don't think there should be more than one person working on a given case's decision(s), to avoid disputes arising from differences in interpretation, etc.  --Merovingian ※ Talk 00:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) For those who are administrators only - how do you feel about non-administrators on the arbcom? Note that while "sure, let them on if they get elected" is an easy answer, there are issues with not having the ability to view deleted articles, and either not earning the community trust enough to become an admin, or not wanting the commensurate duties. Or do you believe that non-administrators are a group that need representation on the arbcom?
 * I can't say that non-admins "need" representation on the ArbCom, only because it's not really a representative body like a legislature, and doesn't have obligations to work for any one group in particular. Non-admins who have failed RfAs or don't want to be an admin because they don't want to have to use the tools might be a problem, because for me it calls into question their amount of trust from the public or dedication to the project, even if they have good faith.  Required administrator abilities present non-admins with a problem, the solution for which I think may be recusal or simply asking another arbitrator for help.  --Merovingian ※ Talk 00:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Question(s) from Jacoplane

 * You previously left Wikipedia for an extended period of time (I'm sure because of important other engagements). If you would be elected to the Arbitration Committee, can you ensure that (exclusing personal-sphere emergencies) you will be able to serve the committee without being otherwise engaged? You are somewhat young and I can well imagine that you have important university exams which would happen during your tenure. I'd like to support your candidacy since I think you're a very reliable Wikipedian, but I hope you understand that I just wanted to have these questions clarified :) jaco ♫ plane  19:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As it is, I only spend roughly half my computer time on Wikipedia. If elected, I can easily allot more time to arbitration if I feel that not doing so would hinder my ability to participate.  Also, I'm going to be taking some time off after I graduate to work for a year or so before I apply to university, so that would help.  --Merovingian ※ Talk 00:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Additional questions
1) In the past 3 months, which article have you most improved, and in what way?
 * Right away I would have to say Muteki Kanban Musume, which I started back in July. I think I put in a good effort into it by updating it as the episodes came out.  Also, I have to the thank the other editors who helped on it.  I never would have thought of many of the things they added.  --Merovingian ※ Talk 04:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

2) Name a significant mistake have you made at Wikipedia, and what you have learned from it.
 * One mistake that I made early on was speedy-deleting "To Anacreon in Heaven". I didn't do any research and thought it was garbage; I even put it on WP:BJAODN.  That really opened me up to the importance of looking around before I jump to conclusions.  --Merovingian ※ Talk 04:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

3) Should sysops be extended a measure of deference or extra trust in disputes with ordinary users?
 * As I expressed in response to a previous question, I think that all users should be treated on the same level whenever possible, excluding actions done in bad faith and the abuse of adminstrative or other functionary privileges. --Merovingian ※ Talk 04:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Ragesoss
In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?
 * The Scientific Point of View is, by definitely, much less inclusive of minority viewpoints or thought than our NPOV policy. It does not work well outside of scientific articles, while NPOV works at least decently for all kinds of articles.  SPOV has a pretty clear bias toward what is "official" or "mainstream".  It more or less goes against our aim of providing the "sum of human knowledge".  --Merovingian ※ Talk 01:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Sam Blanning
You have put yourself in Category:Administrators open to recall, allowing Wikipedians "in good standing" to ask for you to have your adminship reconfirmed if they feel it necessary.


 * 1) Should all administrators be open to recall?
 * Yes, I think it might be a good move to show transparency and to catch administrator slipups. --Merovingian ※ Talk 01:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) If you became an Arbitrator, would you continue to be open to recall?
 * Yes, of course. I have nothing to fear.  --Merovingian ※ Talk 01:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

If you answered "yes" to question 2, then:
 * 1) Given that in your answer to a previous question, you stated that you saw problems with non-admins being on the Arbitration Committee, if you did lose adminship due to recall, would you resign from the Arbcom at the same time?
 * I guess that would depend on why I lost adminship, and whether it would affect the way people felt about my ability to rationalize and make decisions (in other words, to contribute to the committee). --Merovingian ※ Talk 01:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you think all Arbitrators should be open to recall?
 * Well it would be a good idea. The only problem I could see is abuse of the system by users with a bone to pick, acting in bad faith.  --Merovingian ※ Talk 01:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Giano
Members of the current Arbcom were recently openly discussing people involved in an Arbcom case on the IRC Admin's channel. What are your views on that, and  on Arbcom confidentiality. Giano 17:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think I like the idea of using a medium such as IRC for arbitration business. I'm not sure there's any added benefit, and I would rather that all documentation in cases be done on the wiki, or the mailing list.  As for confidentiality, I don't think it's a good idea for arbitrators to be talking about cases loosely.  They are important matters that which arbitrators should stay professional about at all times if possible.  --Merovingian ※ Talk 21:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Badbilltucker
Thank you for volunteering to take on this task, and for putting yourself through having to answer these questions. For what it's worth, these particular questions are going to all the candidates.

1. I've noticed that a total of thriteen people have resigned from the committee, and that there is currently one vacancy open in one of the tranches. Having members of the committee resign sometime during their term could create problems somewhere down the road. What do you think are the odds that you yourself might consider resigning during the course of your term, and what if any circumstances can you envision that might cause you to resign? Also, do you think that possibly negative feelings from others arising as a result of a decision you made could ever be likely to be cause for your own resignation?
 * Tentatively, two circumstances for resignation I see are a personal emergency where I can't access the computer for some time, or an incident in which my actions as a part of the committee are shown to be unbecoming of an arbitrator. I don't want to resign unless there is no other choice.  If consensus should determine that I am an inadequate arbitrator, I would resign with no questions asked.  --Merovingian ※ Talk 21:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

2. There may well arise cases where a dispute based on the inclusion of information whose accuracy is currently a point of seemingly reasonable controversy, possibly even bitter controversy, in that field of study. Should you encounter a case dealing with such information, and few if any of your colleagues on the committee were knowledgeable enough in the field for them to be people whose judgement in this matter could be completely relied upon, how do you think you would handle it?
 * I don't think any expertise I may have in a subject would really make a difference in deciding whether or not it fits into an article. Not that I wouldn't necessarily add my own interpretation, but I don't think I as a single person should be determining whether controversial information should stay or go.  --Merovingian ※ Talk 21:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Question(s) from Dakota
If elected to the Arbitration Committee will you continue active editing? Will you not lose interest in contributing to articles. Will you be available to any users who seek your help or advice.

-- Dakota 13:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, on all points. I do and will continue to enjoy improving articles of any kind.  And I will still be more than happy to help users on any kind of question.  --Merovingian ※ Talk 01:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from JzG
Open-mindedness and the ability to revise one's own position in response to new evidence seems to me to be an important factor in considering ArbCom cases. Can you please provide an example of a situation where your initial judgement of a situation turned out to be wrong, and show how you dealt with it? Guy (Help!) 14:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Last October I had some trouble concerning the title of Macedonian denar. I wanted to keep it at FYROM denar, because Macedonia is a rather vague term, while FYROM is a lot more specific.  I completely dropped the dispute, since the term itself only refers to one currency, and thus my point was pretty moot.  --Merovingian ※ Talk 04:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Torinir
I'm asking these questions all applicants:

1) How would you handle a situation where an error of judgment has occured, especially if evidence is provided to confirm that the position is incorrect?
 * If it's me that's made the bad judgment, I would distance myself from the problem, drop it, whatever. There's no point in continuing to argue something I have fundamentally misunderstood.
 * If it's another user, I guess I'd have to forgive them for their error and move on. No use in pursuing something they messed up on, assuming that they had acted in good faith.  --Merovingian ※ Talk 02:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

2) If a decision of yours, while technically a correct one, would knowingly be unpopular en masse, how would you present your decision?
 * If such a proposal could not be modified to achieve greater community support I would have no choice but to just come out with it. If it's better for the project than not, I think that people should just have to swallow it.  --Merovingian ※ Talk 02:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

3) Place each of these policies/guidelines listed in order of precedence (to you) starting with highest priority. There is really no right or wrong answer. I'm interested in seeing what you would normally look at first when assessing an article.

WP:V WP:BLP WP:NOT WP:NPOV WP:NOR WP:C WP:RS WP:N


 * My order is:
 * WP:NOT, WP:C, WP:N, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR
 * Merovingian ※ Talk 02:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hypothetical from John Reid

 * Content dispute on Article X. Editor A ignites war with rude comment on User talk:B. New editor B sees this and reacts but A sneaky reverts himself before anybody else notices the instigation. Rude comments on Talk:X. Rude comments between Editors A and B on each other's talk. Admin C blocks A and B for a day. 12 hours later, Admin D sees the sneaky revert and unblocks B and, for good measure, extends A's block to 2 days. Admin C sees the unblock, doesn't understand/agree with the block sum, reblocks B and extends his block to match A's. He comments in good faith on User talk:D.


 * Admin D sees the reblock and reads the comment that reveals C's ignorance, reunblocks B, and leaves message on AN, explaining the sneaky revert. C reblocks again, leaves message on User talk:D complaining of 0WW violation. D replies on User talk:C, explains the sneaky revert, and unblocks both parties. Admin E (up to now uninvolved, stay with me here) comes to User talk:B to follow up on unrelated Article Y discussion; sees B complaining mightily but incoherently about being blocked. E reads through talk on X, A, and B and sees a lot of rudeness, blocks both editors for a day.


 * Editors M, N, P, and Q, friends or partisans of A and B, object loudly on talk to every turn of events; C blocks some of them, D blocks others. Meanwhile, C and D are trading insults on talk and Admin F finally steps in and blocks them for a week. Admin G unblocks everybody. Admin H discusses the situation offwiki with Admins J and K; H posts to AN with the stated intent to block all involved parties for 24 hours for violations of CIVIL and NPA. J and K endorse; H implements the blocks, which expire a day later. The case winds up at ArbCom.


 * I've already written my answer in detail, encrypted it, and uploaded it to a userpage. I'll give you a week to think about this case before revealing my solutions. 08:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Sugaar
How would you deal with abuse of authority by administrators, meaning by this application of blocks as punitive measures and use of blocks in unclear PA cases, as per WP:BLOCK. Would you protect the sysop no matter what or would you defend policy above all? In other words, what do you consider more important: strict discipline or strict application of policy? Thanks.