Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/Monsieurdl/Questions for the candidate

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

Questions from east718 (answered)

 * 1) Do you feel that the Arbitration Committee takes too long to close cases? Or do you feel that they act too hastily and some important facets of cases occasionally fall through the cracks? Either way, what will you do to remedy it?


 * A1. I do feel that it does take long to close arbitration cases because there are naturally so many things to do on Wikipedia as an editor and those who take on added responsibility. Proper time should be taken for investigation and the rulings to be handed down without making persons involved wait for a resolution for months at a time. What concerns me about arbitration cases also is the lack of ability for people to look beyond the surface of what has occurred- I would examine why people react the way that they do, for some are very good at quoting policies and procedures and they could be just as guilty by unnecessarily provoking people. This added work shouldn't take that much time, and I'd be willing to put forth the effort efficiently.


 * 1) Normally, I'd put a more personal question here, but I don't know anything about you. Can you give some examples of proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies on voting subpages that you disagree with? How about some proposals that actually passed? If you consider any completed arbitration cases to be failures in their intent, scope, or remedy, could you please name them and your reasoning why?


 * A2. I have never been a big proponent of supervisory judgments, for I find them to be ineffective. Outright bans for a specific period are the most effective way to put people on notice for their actions- it is much less disruptive, and allows serious editors a chance to get their work done. These judgments were handed down in Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2, a case that I found to be particularly poignant. What we have here is a total mess- a complete lack of civility, posturing bordering on insanity, rabid nationalism, he said she said, and yet it happened not ONCE but TWICE. That to me turns people off to Wikipedia. These disruptive people need to be put on notice in an effective manner- warnings and watches just are not working- a fine example.

Thanks, east. 718 at 17:35, 11/1/2007


 * I know you don't know me, but I hope I have answered your questions to your liking. Thank you! Monsieurdl 19:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Heimstern (answered)
My questions are kind of nitty-gritty, but I'm not looking for really specific answers as much as trying to see your thought process and approaches to the issues.

1. What is your philosophy on how to handle edit warriors? Under what circumstances should the Committee ban users who continually edit war, and when should they use lesser sanctions, such as paroles or editing restrictions? What factors should the Committee consider in deciding what sanctions are appropriate?


 * A1. I am very familiar with edit warriors as I am a member of the Greek and Turkish Wikipedian cooperation board. I answered above that I am not a big fan of paroles in the cases of extreme edit-warring, especially when it involves deep-rooted cultural issues. Lesser sanctions should be used in the cases of minor edit wars, such as phraseology, images, simple facts, etc. They are effective because people will not normally go too far in those pursuits, but they tend to when involved with issues regarding cultures, races, religions, and the like. The factors should be on the basis of what kind of edit warring it is (as I stated above), how the talk page was utilized, and if the parties actually took the time and effort to hold out their hand in a gesture of goodwill.

2. What about uncivil editors (including those making personal attacks)? What factors should the Committee consider in deciding whether and how to sanction them?


 * A2. Personal attacks can sometimes be somewhat serious, be serious, sometimes can be manipulated to be made to be serious by crafty editors, and sometimes they are outright threats. It all depends upon what I as an arbitrator would see in the histories of events- and it is all in the analysis, believe me. They should consider abstaining if they have ANY interest in either side, being impartial on the basis of how long a person has been a Wikipedian, their status, their accomplishments, or who they know. The FACTS are what they should go by, and to me that is a fair process.

3. When should an administrator be desysopped? In particular, how should a sysop's failings be weighed against his or her useful administrative actions, and when do the failings merit removal of adminship? When, if ever, is it appropriate to use a temporary suspension, such as was used in Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson?


 * A3. Abuse of power is one of the most shameful acts that I can think of- people entrust a place of knowledge into certain peoples' hands, and this does not mean that the rules and policies are a stake by which to drive through the heart of anyone who might get in their way. They should be stripped of their admin privileges (and I do mean privileges) no matter what they contribute is abuse is evident. I personally don't like it when good people are besmirched by those in power, and we must have a basis by which independent editors have the ability to monitor and rule accordingly. Past accomplishments and benefits should NEVER trump broken faith of those in power.

4. Under what circumstances should the Committee consider an appeal of a community ban?


 * A4. I think appeals should be handled in EVERY case, to be honest, if they are called for. A proper appeals process is vital in every system of justice, and it should make no difference here.

5. Two recent cases, Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid and Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone, were dismissed with no decision made after the Committee had been unable to come to a decision concerning wrongdoing or sanctions. In both cases, the arbitrators seem to have felt that the cases' issues were no longer current, either because the community had resolved the issue or because a participant was no longer active at Wikipedia. Now, consider a similar situation in which the Committee cannot agree on finding concerning user conduct or on appropriate sanctions, but in which the case issues are clearly current. What should be done in such a case?


 * A5. No one should get a free pass just because one of the major parties has simply gone away. Bad conduct by those who remain should still be ruled on accordingly, and that is a failing of the system. We should not tolerate those who do things to harm fellow editors and then are released without punishment. Davidshankbone is one of the milder examples, so I could not apply it to the kinds of cases that I was talking about. The Apartheid case is to me an example of a user not recognizing what standards are necessary for Wikipedia, and to not render judgement without at least a statement is not a proper resolution- the concerned party should know better.

Thanks for your consideration. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your questions! I hope they are sufficient answers. Monsieurdl 20:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Majorly (answered)
These are generic questions, so apologies if you've answered them elsewhere :)


 * 1) How do you think that your personality would make you a good arbitrator?


 * A1. My personality is of a serious nature when it comes to dealing with disputes, but not rigid enough to where I discount one side or the other without cause. I can readily admit to others when I am wrong, I am naturally diplomatic (not too overbearing or lenient), and I give people a chance to express themselves.


 * 1) Do you have any experience in real life that could relate to activities arbitrators have to deal with?


 * A2. Every single day, in the military. If you are not able to temper yourself and give orders as well as take them, then you will not survive at all. In this regard, it is very easy to apply- you have to know when to praise and when to punish, and to work with people on a 1-on-1 or more basis is guaranteed. It isn't like being a normal citizen where anything goes- there is a system in place, rules, and a code of conduct. I'm trained to be a leader and a mentor, which really does make a great arbitrator- you can't excel at those things without being good at dealing with people and their issues.

Thanks for your time.  Majorly  (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope these answers satisfy your questions. Thanks! Monsieurdl 22:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from xaosflux (answered)

 * 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.


 * 1A. I am an advocate for anyone wishing to edit Wikipedia must have a login to do so, for I have seen the dangers firsthand of anonymous IP vandalism and the effects of IP address banning. The broad permissions that you speak of are vital functions if the current system of editing remains in place, and can always be limited further if changes are implemented. The Oversight permission should only be used by the most trusted of Wikipedians due to the nature of the power. The Checkuser permission is a very contentious permission, in that it could be used to justify banning a similar range of IP's, harming someone else's ability to edit Wikipedia if they happen to be in the same computer lab, being different people. I am of course not talking about all vandals, but a vandal and a regular person who might share the same lab at a university, for instance.

Thank you,—  xaosflux  Talk 19:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC) (Note:Generic question for all candidates, other candidates are WELCOME to copy this question in to their subpages)


 * Glad to answer your questions. I hope they are sufficient answers! Monsieurdl 22:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Picaroon (answered)

 * Please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007 and User:Picaroon/Stats. Do you have time to vote on most of the approximately eight cases a month that will come before the committee? Would you resign your post if you found yourself consistently (say, 2-3 months on end) unable to even get near that goal? Under what conditions besides inactivity would you resign your post?


 * A1. I feel as if since I am unhindered by any current heavy Wikipedia responsibilities (not counting my editing) that I can most certainly commit the time required, as well as the dedication it takes to arbitrate successfully. I would most certainly resign if there was any chance I would not be able to fulfill my duties to a high standard. I would only resign if something serious happened in my family or there is any kind of serious threat that took place in the northeastern U.S.


 * Under what conditions should non-arbitrators be granted access to the arbcom mailing list? Former members, checkusers/oversights who have never been on the committee, board members, others?


 * A2. Non-arbitrators such as the following: former members of any ArbCom not replaced or those who did not resign for a truly acceptable reason because they are trusted; those who have oversight because they have the permission so there is no reason why they shouldn't; board members of course; and any other Wikipedian who is allowed by a quorum of ArbCom members due to advanced expertise or multiple outstanding contributions.


 * Can you show an example or two of a normal case (ie, accepted via committee vote on WP:RFAR, not dismissed without remedies) where you largely disagree with the final decision? Please explain why you disagree with the outcome, and say what you would've supported instead (or, alternately, why the case shouldn't have been accepted).


 * A3. This has been addressed in an earlier question, but I'll most certainly bring it up again.
 * In Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2, it was clear that these participants were once again acting in a particularly destructive manner, and they should have been banned appropriately. 'Somewhat reduced' edit warring and incivility is another indication that the warnings the first time were not heeded. I disagree with the decision because it disrupts normal editing by people who do conduct themselves like these users did. I would have banned them for a certain period by time on a case-by-case basis, laid out the facts per user, and that would have been that.


 * Please list the total number of alternate accounts you have used, and please list the usernames of as many as you feel comfortable making public.


 * A4. NONE. I have no need for alternate accounts.


 * Under what circumstances should a case be heard completely via email, as opposed to onwiki? Under what conditions should the committee block a user without making public the full extent of the reasoning (for example, this user)?


 * A5. The circumstances would have to be if it was agreed on by all parties involved. I can't see why these proceedings would not be made public, unless it dealt with something that could be considered a legal issue for Wikipedia. As for the indefinite block, it is totally appealable and can be justified if a reason is requested. By not appealing or asking, it is obvious that it was justified.


 * What do you think of Jimmy Wales desysop of a few days ago? (see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/My desysop of Zscout370‎)? What should he have done differently, if anything? What role should the committee have had in this?


 * A6. This is a very interesting case, for we have a policy in place and a structure versus the One, so to speak. Everyone is human, and apt to make mistakes. Here it is obvious to me that by labeling something as wheel warring, it is an incorrect call. As I have said before, it matters not what the person has done in the past positively, but the facts matter. In this instance, Jimbo was wrong, and I think by admitting it was not wheel warring would have been a great step in solving the problem. Now, there is a question of fairness which is troubling. The committee should step in and arbitrate this as any other dispute; there is no doubt.


 * Under what circumstances should the committee implement an indefinite ban on a user? Under what conditions should probation/supervised editing be instituted instead of a ban of any duration?


 * A7. Indefinite bans should be reserved for those who consistently violate major rules such as vandalism or edit warring or 3RR or excess incivility and who are warned by MULTIPLE users. A reason should be prepared automatically in case anyone questions it. Probation or supervised editing should apply only to people with minor problems that have civility issues in talk pages, or simple disputes in which they don't follow the process for consensus. In essence, those who don't have complexes of religion, nationalism, etc., for they tend to be a lot more rabid and much harder to control.


 * What constitutes a wheel war? Was the Requests for arbitration/BJAODN situation a wheel war? How about Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot and Requests for arbitration/Alkivar?


 * A8. A wheel war is just like any other edit war, only involving admins and their powers with a 2RR rule. BJAODN was NOT a wheel war, as it did not fit the 2RR definition.


 * It was not a wheel war, just very bad judgment. Sadi Carnot was a very difficult case to sort out, as the policies are used here to mask what is going on- a veto of a community ban and an expression of 'anti Thought Police' is not a reason to justify unblocking someone without discussion, and not asking what the reasoning was. Just because someone has a two year clean record does not exempt them from being handed serious consequences- hurting the very foundation of Wikipedia by placing dubious sources and nonsense over a long period of time IS in fact like a double agent within an organization. When he/she is discovered, all of a sudden the "clean record" is moot. The damage far outweighs the first official offense, and so I must say Sadi Carnot should have been blocked indefinitely.


 * It is not a wheel war, but Alkivar does not seem to take his position too seriously, as it is already 1 November and he has not made a statement regarding his conduct since the case opened 15 October and he has been active. That is a major concern, and it shows me a lack of respect toward others who disagree with him or his conduct. By not communicating, this is just as serious as a wheel war.

Thanks for your time, Picaroon (t) 21:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope you are satisfied with my answers. Thank you! Monsieurdl 23:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from CO (answered)

 * 1) Question one: Is consensus really possible with over 200 people commenting on different processes?
 * Answer: Of course sometimes it isn't possible with such a large group by strict definition because some people are just incapable of accepting a consensus and will invariably continue their rants, edits, etc. However, most of the time it IS possible because most of us are capable of making it work.


 * 1) Question two: Does Wikipedia need some sort of governing body? If no, isn't ArbCom a governing body? If yes, what would you propose?
 * Answer: Not a governing body per se because of the bureaucratic nature of one, but it needs oversight badly- a internal affairs, so to speak, to prevent collusion or abuse of power. That is the ArbCom, and there is no doubt that by using it it is most effective when committed people are participating.


 * I hope you are satisfied with my answers. Thanks! Monsieurdl 23:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Clarification: I agree that a group is needed to prevent abuse of power. However, what group exist to prevent abuse of power from ArbCom? If you say it is the community's job to prevent abuse, how so if ArbCom is so closed as a group. I see no balance of powers. Would you do anything to fix this?  C O  23:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Answer: It is the old 'oversight of the oversight of the oversight' ad infinitum, and I see what you are saying, however. You can never say never, but it could happen that the ArbCom could be found abusing its power, but that would mean collusion, and I just could not see the community ever allowing that to happen. A groundswell of popular disapproval could easily be remedied by a simple overrule by Jimbo Wales, which is in fact a balance of power I say. Monsieurdl 23:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * How can one person balance out an entire group? Doesn't he have a particular bias because he created the group? Shouldn't there be 3 or more groups/committees to prevent abuse of power?  C O  00:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Answer: No, I don't think so, because that would imply collusion of a committee and one person that is just unrealistic. After all, according to the ArbCom page, they can be overruled already or bypassed already- and yet this has not been the case. I would only advocate for change if an egregious act had been committed. I am not in favor of more bureaucracy just for the sake of it- it is inefficient and counterproductive. Monsieurdl 03:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from I (answered)
What, if anything, do you believe is wrong with the current arbitration process, and/or the committee? This includes anything related to the committee and its actions. If appointed, what do you intend to do to resolve these issues?


 * A1.I think decisions should not take months at a time. People who cannot find time out of their responsibilities to perform so vital a service should not be on the ArbCom, for sure. I intend to ensure that maximum participation is required so that we never, ever have extensive backlogs. It only happens when people do not pay attention to what is going on, and fills inactive positions ASAP on ArbCom.

i (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope my answer was satisfactory! Thank you. Monsieurdl 23:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Wanderer57 (answered)
Based on ‘Request for comment on user conduct’ processes that you have followed closely, how would you rate them in terms of fairness to the accused?


 * Goodness me, where to begin? I feel as if the space by which a user has to present his or her case is indeed vast, and the advanced state of histories on Wikipedia gives everyone the ultimate in level playing fields. The record is there for everyone to see in black and white, and anyone can provide input or corroboration; only the final judgments are really the elements that deserve close scrutiny, and they are not a factor in this section really- it is a place for evidence. It is most fair, most definitely.

Thanks, Wanderer57 01:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope that is a fine answer! Thank you. Monsieurdl 03:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Daniel (answered)
1: The use of IRC evidence in arbitration cases has flared up in certain cases. A few questions on this:-
 * a) Do you believe that IRC conversations in Wikipedia channels (ie. #wikipedia, #wikipedia-en, #wikipedia-en-admins) should be admissible in arbitration cases where it is directly relevant to the dispute at hand?


 * A1a. I do not think it should be admissable as the standards and punishments between IRC and the Wikipedia site have not clearly been established, only discussed. There has been no consensus on the matter, and I could not as a member of ArbCom allow logs from IRC to be admissable as evidence if there is not a final policy set in place- it would not be fair for all parties. Fairness is what arbitration is all about.


 * b) Do you believe the Arbitration Committee has the jurisdiction to sanction users in these channels when it relates to Wikipedia disruption? If not, should it?


 * A1b. No, as I have stated above. My personal opinion, which is that IRC is separate and therefore inadmissable as it is not necessary to participate on the channels for Wikipedia editing, is not important. What IS important is enforcing a standard that has been agreed upon, not a clouded one that is up in the air.


 * c) If so, what are your thoughts on possibly creating an official Arbitration Committee IRC logging account in these channels for the purpose of providing corrupt-free logs when required for deliberation?


 * A1c. I answered no to the question above, so this doesn't apply obviously.

2: Can emails and IRC logs, etc., be published on Wikipedia? Why or why not? Should they, or shouldn't they?


 * A2. Meetings on an official basis can obviously be published, as it is understood by all parties that it is official. I consider these other means of communication as to be completely separate as the subject has been discussed a lot here at Wikipedia. I have not seen any official standard stating otherwise, except with respect to breaking the law.

3: Are Wikipedians, in particular administrators, required to answer to the Committee for their activites outside English Wikipedia (ie. on other Wikimedia Foundation projects, Wikipedia-related websites including The Wikipedia Review, conduct linked to Wikipedia etc.). Should they be? If so, should the Arbitration Committee have intervened in the case of Requests for adminship/Gracenotes, and do you believe this was the correct decision?


 * A3. The ArbCom should have most certainly intervened in the case of GraceNotes, and frankly speaking, it was something that was sorely needed. Based upon the testimony that I have read over, and the fact that there was a 74% approval as compared to a minority opposition based upon the sole opposition of a failed policy change, I would have wanted ArbCom immediately. I can see why someone would not want to renew or extend an RfA if the proceedings went like they did. That to me is a shame.

4: Theoretical situation: an OTRS respondent blanks a section of an article on a living person, clearly stating that it is an OTRS action based on a semi-credible legal threat in the edit summary. The respondent then protects the article and leaves a note on the talk page asking for the section to be rebuilt, citing OTRS again. An administrator comes along and unprotects it 15mins later and reverts to the old version. A series of administrative and editorial reversions take place, with protection and unprotection (with content reversions) occurring three times in quick succession before both administrators are emergency-desysopped.

The article is then reprotected by a third administrator, and a case brought before the Arbitration Committee. Upon reviewing the OTRS ticket privately on the mailing list, it contains a semi-credible legal threat which is now being dealt with by legal counsel. With regards to the three administrators, what sanctions do you 'support' applying to each of the three?


 * A4. The first administrator, by acting in efficient manner by protecting Wikipedia, did the site a service. However, he or she acted inappropraitely by wheel warring, which deserves some punishment. The second administrator, by not responding via the talk page, taking into account the serious nature of legal threats, and engaging in wheel warring, is the most serious offender here. The third administrator did nothing wrong at all. I would recommend that the first admin be desysopped for a week for engaging in wheel warring, the second admin be desysopped for one month and be given a stern notice that these combined actions could be very harmful to the site itself, and the third admin should be not acted upon at all.

5: What is your (emphasis heavily intended) definition of a wheel war?


 * A5. A wheel war is two successive reverts by an administrator, no less than that. An administrator could very well ignore requests on a talk page for an explanation, and their action could just perpetually be sustained by inaction. Therefore, a revert with explanation is not wheel warring- it is perfectly legal. It is only when two parties exchange these reverts is when it is a war.

I hope that is satisfactory! Monsieurdl 14:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Addhoc (answered)
Are there any subject areas that you would recuse yourself from? Thanks! Addhoc 14:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A1. Of course- to recuse oneself from a particular case is using good judgment, and being responsible. Any case involving editors that I am intimately familiar with, any articles that have extensive work by myself, or ones that involve persons that I have sponsored for any position. To not recuse under these conditions or any condition in which impartiality is questioned is to be irresponsible.

I hope that answered your question! Monsieurdl 14:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Ultraexactzz (answered)
Best wishes in your candidacy, and in your tenure on the committee should you be elected. I'm asking this question to most of the candidates, so I apologize in advance if you've already answered a similar question from another editor.

Some background. I was an avid reader of the encyclopedia until December 2005, when I decided to begin editing. I had started to delve into the workings of the project, reading about AfD's and the ANI and, most interestingly, the work of the Arbitration Committee. When elections came around in December 2005/January 2006, I thought that a fresh perspective might be of value to the committee. So, in my haste to pitch in, I made my 13th edit (!) by nominating myself to the Arbitration Committee.

Needless to say, it did not go well.

However, I did find some editors who supported my candidacy on moral grounds, offering encouragement and concuring that a different perspective was of value in the committee's work. Looking back, it got me thinking, as this round of elections begins: What is the most valuable trait for an arbitrator?


 * A1. The most valuable trait is sifting through all of the researchable material- if you cannot do that, then you won't get to the bare bones facts of the case. As I have stated before, things on the surface aren't enough to make judgments; you have to dig much deeper. That is what separates the great abitrator from the average one.

Your statement and answers to other questions will address this at length, I'm sure, but if you had to distill the essence of being an effective arbitrator into one word, what would that word be? ZZ Claims~ Evidence 15:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A2. Diplomacy.


 * I hope that is what you were looking for- my A2 is one word, but my candidate statement elaborates rather well on this word. Monsieurdl 15:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Wikidudeman (answered)
In my experience, many larger arbitrations seem to suffer from the fact that the arbitrators do not spend as much time on examining the evidence and statements as they should be spending. Examples of problems that arise would be proposals not being used or relevant issues not even being addressed. This is probably due to the large backlog and caseload. What would you do to ensure that all arbitrations are ended efficiently and fairly and that all issues and concerns are addressed and all needed remedies met?  Wikidudeman  (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A1. First of all, I have mentioned the commitment to the job at hand as well as not having people serve that do too much as it is on Wikipedia. This has a lot to do with the lack of time spent on cases, and it has so much to do with the backlog. In essence, it is not the backlog causing the evidence and statements to fall through the cracks, but the other way around. Not taking the proper time to handle the cases in an efficient manner has led to these backlog problems. Recognizing what is going on is the first step. By not having an adequate plan, things go awry. Next, I would take the plan to handle each case and establish realistic deadlines so that testimony is presented in a timely manner so that it is fair to all parties. Exceptions will arise, but they should be very limited in their framework. From those deadlines, it is imperative that I take the proper amount of time to thoroughly study each facet and come up with established facts and reasoning as the evidence comes in. This way, I have been working continuously and not waiting for it all to come in. After the deadlines, a proper judgment can be attained after all evidence and testimony has been rendered. It all seems very simple to me, for we cannot have a standard other than a high one.


 * I hope that is satisfactory! Thank you. Monsieurdl 13:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from User:Secret (answered)

 * What do you think about self-admitted alternative accounts, see User:MOASPN, and User:Privatemusings as an example? This is a Secret account 01:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A1. They have absolutely no valid answer in my mind for having an alternate account- my question is "What exactly is there to hide by doing this?". I do not have one myself nor do I have any such inkling to, and if anyone feels like they need to abuse their usage of Wikipedia, then they are just plain wrong. No excuses.


 * What do you think of Wikipedia Review? This is a Secret account 01:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A2. I have about as much respect for the WR as I do for the National Enquirer or the New York Post. Just because someone has the right to engage in sensationalistic or low-blow journalism doesn't mean it is right. Wikipedia editors aren't politicians who are responsible to the people for their actions. I have nothing to hide as a person, and if WR wants to play their little games with me down the road, I'll tell them the same thing I have said here. I have no use for any rag, be it paper or electronic.


 * I hope my answers have been satisfactory. Thank you. Monsieurdl 20:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Ragesoss (answered)
In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?--ragesoss 03:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A1. This is a very simple difference in my opinion- with NPOV work, it is always present, and there is no question as to its validity. With the SPOV (of which I deal with rarely as history and sports is hardly a scientific endeavour), it has a lot more room for a wide range of ideas which should be represented if verifiable through sources that are legitimate. You cannot simply say that something is ALWAYS 100% true in the scientific community, for differing theories and research often range from somewhat dissimilar to outright opposite. Black and white as far as NPOV versus shades of fuzzy gray for SPOV, in simple terms.

I hope that answers it! Thank you. Monsieurdl 00:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from jd2718 (answered)

 * 1) I have seen written that to be a good Arbitrator, a WPian should first be a good editor. You seem to have nicely edited a few articles, but do we know enough to safely characterize you as a good editor yet?


 * A1. I would say so, because although my body of work here is not nearly as extensive as others, what I have edited has been of the highest quality as I have adapted to the various tools here since February. It was not easy at first, for the coding of various tags takes time to learn. However, at this present time, I am supremely confident in my abilities. Currently I am working on an article- History of Anatolia- that requires an extensive amount of research, reference gathering, and format changes. It cannot be done in a day or even a week to do it the way it should be done, but what I have accomplished more than qualifies me as a good editor.


 * 1) In a similar vein, you arrived a few months ago and started editing nicely, but we don't have much to go on as far as your durability; will you be around 2 years from now? Can you convince us?


 * A2. I know that I cannot convince anyone truly if I do not know them on a personal level, but I can state how I feel personally. I don't have the means to publish any works of History, or to use my great experience with history and genealogy on a daily basis, but Wikipedia gives me that opportunity to contribute somehow. It disturbs me that such a great site as this has so many articles that need extensive work, but at least subjects are getting recognized. By having this avenue at my disposal, it guarantees that I will be around for a long, long time, doing my very best to see that articles are of the finest quality.


 * 1) Do you have any experience on Wikipedia with dispute resolution? Jd2718 01:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A3. Why yes I do, in fact. Every day there are some people who cannot seem to grasp WP:NPOV or WP:Consensus, and you pretty much have to mediate between parties, for things get very heated. It is on a more personal level of course, since ArbCom is more of a ruling body than just a few editors bouncing things back and forth. It does not take official dispute resolution skills on Wikipedia to get the job done on ArbCom, but intelligent thought, humanity, and tried and true methods. A person could be on Wikipedia for years and yet still not be effective, whether by personality conflicts, flawed research methods, or problems with being dedicated. I assure you all that I have no such problems.

I hope that my answers are sufficient. Thank you! Monsieurdl 12:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Cla68 (answered)
In looking at your user page, it appears that you've done a lot of quality content work on history articles, which is much appreciated. Have any of the articles that you've worked on attained Good or Featured Article status? Cla68 07:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A1. Before I respond, let me preface by saying that most of my editing work has been involved with the article History of Anatolia, a subject which requires documenting the histories of a large number of cultures and empires from the Neolithic Age all the way until the present day. If you look at it, you will see how labor-intensive it actually is. I had to say that because some people cannot see how much work needs to go into an article to really make it a quality article. I am working for something no less than FA status- and this is what the article was like before I started: History of Anatolia, old version. As of the present moment my answer is none because I have either edited the article above or ones that require extensive work that can and will reach that status in time. I refuse to add a few lines to an article and suddenly run it up looking to improve on my GA and FA count- that is ludicrous. I would hope that those who have edited Wikipedia extensively could appreciate the kind of time and energy it takes to really work from nothing and create a masterpiece. Why should we settle for anything less than FA status on subjects that can be covered in detail as they deserve?

I hope that I have answered to your satisfaction. Thank you. Monsieurdl 13:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from WJBscribe (answered)
A few questions from me. I'm asking all candidates the same thing. I don't think anyone's asked these yet but if they have, feel free to just point me to a previous answer.
 * 1) Appointment to the Arbitration Committee is for three years - a lot can change on Wikipedia in three years. Should there be a mechanism by which the Community can recall an arbitrator in whose judgment it loses confidence? Do you have any thoughts as to what form that mechanism should take?


 * A1. One member of the ArbCom is not the only member of the ArbCom, and it is my opinion that by moving to recall a member it defeats the purpose of a committee. Why not have just one person sitting in judgment then? There have been numerous instances in committees where a minority opinion has at first seemed to be unorthodox, but in the end it was a quality judgment based on events. The invariable knee-jerk reaction could also pose a danger- you just never know. Inactivity would be the only reason I could see anyone from a committee being removed.


 * 1) ArbCom is responsible for assigning checkuser and oversight access to users of the English Wikipedia. Would you advocate withdrawing the access in the case of someone someone who failed to make sufficient use of it? If yes, what sort of activity level would you say is required?


 * A2. Not really, because abuse of the powers should warrant withdrawing access because it really hurts Wikipedia, while inactivity would basically cause these powers to be inactive as well. It all depends upon what other responsibilities these persons would have besides just having these powers. Then the varying degree of responsibility would be reflected in the loss of a function in addition to powers rendered.


 * 1) Where the Community finds itself unable to reach a consensus on the formulation of a given policy, do you think ArbCom has a role to play in determining that policy?


 * A3. No, I do not. One limiting body cannot determine the overall policy of a community- only the community should have that right. If consensus cannot be reached, it is the equivalent of legislation not having enough backing to pass in a governing body of representatives. Of course, ArbCom is not a legislative body that represents everyone, but a judicial body that decides when policy has not been followed. That is the best comparison I can give on this subject.

Thanks for your time and good luck. WjBscribe 23:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution! Monsieurdl 00:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

More questions from jd2718 (answered)

 * 1) From ArbCom's POV, what is the difference between administrators and non-administrators? Should there be different expectations? Different treatment?


 * A1. The difference lies in the fact that administrators have the power to enact judgments upon those that the ArbCom have deemed to be acting in an inappropriate manner, and that they have a lot more power which adds a different element to arbitrating cases.


 * There should be significantly higher expectations of them because how their permissions are handled and how they handle various situations in whcih their power can be used. My main concern has always been having someone in that position of power that merely acts without much explanation or justification, and cannot communicate effectively. When that happens, it reflects badly upon the community as a whole and chases away good editors. With treatment, it should be the same all across the board- we are all editors.


 * I have worked with several editors over the course of my time here who are highly competent, excellent editors, highly qualified in the field of academia, are genuinely good people, and are very mature. These people are not administrators, and yet their skills and abilities are very impressive and I thank them whenever I can for their contribution. Some people just do not have any desire to be administrators, and yet may be some of the most respected people here. Therefore, treatment on two levels in my mind would make no sense whatsoever.


 * 1) If Jimbo granted you personally the right to add, delete or modify exactly one policy, which would you choose? Why?


 * A2. I would make everyone register a name to edit Wikipedia- no more generic IP addresses. If a vandal had to take the time to register every single time he/she wanted to vandalize, then it would slow them down so much. Registration doesn't mean giving out your personal information away- it helps to significantly reduce needless vandalism. I hate it that administrators here have to hunt down IP ranges just to block off them- that's ineffective.


 * 1) Disputes over nationalist conflicts involving multiple editors seem to find their way to ArbCom fairly regularly. Are these sorts of disputes different from other disputes on WP? How? Should ArbCom deal with them differently?


 * A3. They most certainly are different, for they take on a character that is unlike most other generic disputes. They involve people who have significant biases based upon learned behavior, environment, biased sources of information, and/or a sense that justice must be served by eliminating any reference to events that they feel should be censored. I have seen many of these first hand both outside of and in Wikipedia, and what I find to be effective is a good mixture of various cultures that demands the highest quality NPOV standard be applied. You have to be firm and decisive when facing it, or it will degenerate and turn off editors.


 * ArbCom should recognize the different nature of the case, but it should not rule based upon the cause of the violations. All activity must be dealt with in the same manner of course to promote fairness, but sorting out the evidence requires advanced study of the backgrounds behind the problem. That is where research comes into play- it is vital to figuring out the causes.

Thank you. Jd2718 15:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your questions, and I hope that I answered sufficiently. Monsieurdl 15:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Revolving Bugbear (answered)
In light of the recent ruling in the French courts re WMF:

The servers for English Wikipedia are hosted in the United States, and the WMF is incorporated in the United States (Florida, specifically). But Wikipedians can access and edit Wikipedia from anywhere in the world (with the possible exceptions of China and Burma, maybe, but that's neither here nor there). Given that, as an ArbCom member, you might be dealing with issues such as possible legal threats against Wikipedia, whose laws does Wikipedia need to follow? What should be done if there is a legitimate concern raised by a Wikipedian that an article may be in violation of US law? What about law of a country other than the US? - Revolving Bugbear  16:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A1. The role of ArbCom is not to be specified experts when it comes to legal matters, but acting when it comes to articles that might pose a threat under the law is crucial. From what I have seen, a majority of the complaints come from articles involving living persons, organizations, or governmental information. It is my opinion that the matters that come before ArbCom with respect to legal concerns should be referred to those who are intimately involved with the law. Then they can examine the concerns with respect to US law or any other countries' law.

Thank you! Monsieurdl 18:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Piotrus (answered)

 * 1) Do you think an arbitrator should be active in all cases he has no conflict or interests in?


 * A1. Of course. That is the reason why we have an ArbCom, to make sure the job gets done right and that there is maximum participation.


 * 1) If the arbitrator is active, should he be expected to comment in workshop / arbcom discussion pages?


 * A2. Once again, this is a given. The role of committee members should include working together to improve the process, and by participating in them, it can happen.


 * 1) Do you think some editors should be more equal than others? I.e. should incivility of experienced editor - one who registered years ago and wrote or contributed to many articles - be treated differently from incivility of a relative newcomer?


 * A3. I am so glad you asked that, because I am supremely concerned by this. When someone who has been an editor for several years engages in incivility, you can throw away the experience, the reputation, the contributions, and the position. The standards are very simple, and there should absolutely be NO difference in treatment. If any hint of unfairness arises, it compromises the integrity of the system. Otherwise, Wikipedia will suffer greatly.

--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) How can WP:CIV and similar issues be enforced? Should they be enforced as efficient as 3RR?


 * A4. 3RR is a clear-cut rule that can be dealt with instantly. The enforcement of WP:CIV takes more of a consensus opinion and judgment that takes into account all that was said. Several things are to be considered in civility cases- What has been said in the page and other pages that may not be seen at a cursory glance, ongoing relations between the parties, the backgrounds of each editor that may spark a conflict, actions with or without discussion in talk pages, and the relative positions of both sides. I would enforce WP:CIV by using several different editors to look at all that has happened, and by using the elements above, rendering a decision.

Thank you. Monsieurdl 19:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Points of View: When does including "notable" points of view become problematic for NPOV? (answered)
When I first came on to Wikipedia a year and a half ago the project was more centered around "Just the facts" - articles were more crafted around the who, the what, the when and the where, with some emphasis on the why. Of late, the why has taken on a dominant role in articles on contentious issues, with each side in the political spectrum putting forth their own "notable" mouthpiece to spin what the who, the what, the when and the where means. Do you think this is a positive development? Do you think this is educational, or do you think it makes Wikipedia another platform for the dichotomized public debate--that there are two sides to every issues, and two views--that is prevalent in American society?-- David  Shankbone  18:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanksgiving is now over, so back to work! :)


 * A1. I think the additional broadening of the "why" is a positive development, because in my field of expertise, history, most things are never just the facts, black and white as they appear to be. That is why many articles are indeed contentious, for ones notion of what is correct can be skewed depending upon where the facts come from. For instance, if I was to reference a source from Robert Spencer, it would present many statements that are backed up by precise historical events. However, those events could be hand-picked to present his own POV, and therefore is skewed in a conservative direction. It is very educational to cause people to question what is legitimate and what is not, what is wholly true and what may be partially true. This is the fine art of research, and I totally enjoy the challenge. Huzzah to why!


 * Thank you, and I hope that was sufficient! Monsieurdl (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from AniMate (answered)
Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution. However, first and foremost, we are here to work on an encyclopedia. Editing and adding to the project should be everyone's first priority. Can you point out some of your recent mainspace contributions that you are most proud of? AniMate 12:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A1. There is no doubt that I am proudest of my magnum opus, the History of Anatolia. When I took it over, it was a sparse, general history that barely skimmed the surface of the skin of the surface, if you know what I mean! Now, it is coming along very nicely. When I first started editing here, I knew the ways of research and proper sourcing, but here the inline sources are so vitally important. I take my sourced material very seriously- a lot of editors are happy with accepting a wide variety of sources from all mediums, but in history I like to pretty much stay with the published works and use the internet sparingly. It takes a lot of hard work to tackle the history of one region from the beginning until present day, and I'm all for it. I have a goal of making an article FA right off the bat, and as I have said before, I'm not trying to collect numbers all through the good article and A categories, but make all the articles the very best they can be. My only regret is that more editors have not come to work on it, because it would go much faster and have more creative input. I am also proud of Albert Kesselring because it badly needed material and a good update, and I got a lot of help from Hawkeye7 because he had access to better sources than I and he did a fantastic job. Lastly, John Webster (Governor of the Colony of Connecticut) will always hold a special place in my heart because it was my first created article, and I view it every once in a while. Maybe it isn't as long as most, but it got me started here and I am very glad that I could do it.


 * Thank you, and I hope the answer was what you were looking for! Monsieurdl (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Cla68 (answered)

 * So that it won't look like I'm targeting anyone in particular, I'm asking this question of all the candidates. Were you a recipient on the email list used by Durova to distribute her evidence used to wrongfully block !! as detailed in this ArbCom case? Cla68 (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I do not give out my email address nor do I ever sanction the use of email off-site unless it deals with legal issues. I understand you needing to be fair. Thanks! Monsieurdl (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Rschen7754 (answered)

 * 1) What are your views regarding debates such as WP:RFAR/HWY and WP:SRNC? (In terms of dispute resolution).


 * A1. That was by all accounts a clear-cut case- I can't understand how one editor can think their way is better than any reasonable attempts at consensus or arbitration. On a personal level, that galls me to no end, but sometimes a list of clear-cut facts wipes away any attempt at someone to whitewash what they have done. It didn't surprise me one bit as to the overall findings by ArbCom in that matter and the results that ensued.


 * 1) a) What is the purpose of a WikiProject? Do you believe that WikiProjects b) own articles or c) can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?


 * A2. The purpose of a WikiProject is to gather editors together who share a common interest to improve and promote articles that fall within their subject. The ownership of articles is not to be claimed by any WikiProjects, for that really does massively restrict the editing capabilities of people who could share vital information without being very interested in the subject. Enforcing standards by a WikiProject would be like enforcing standards at any other time- so long as they were Wikipedia ones, and not some tightly-held format that would act as a restriction on other editors- I am against that. Consensus is STILL the order of the day.


 * 1) Do you believe that parent WikiProjects have the right to impose standards (such as article layout) on child WikiProjects? (Case in point: WP:USRD and its state highway projects)


 * A3. It is not a matter of Wikiprojects, but a matter of Wikipedia consensus. ANYONE has the right to give input with regards to layouts, and it is not just a WikiProject consensus. Just because a discussion appears in a project page does not mean it is project exclusive; we must all remember that.


 * 1) a) What is your definition of canvassing? b) Does it include project newsletters or IRC?


 * A4. My definition is simple- trying to influence decisions based upon a systematic campaign of messaging or e-mailing. It should include every means of communication that is available that can be provided as evidence. I find it to be a reprehensible practice personally- asking for help is one thing, but deliberately trying to throw your POV into a matter beyond presenting a case to influence is wrong.


 * 1) a) In terms of vandalism and good faith but horrible edits, where do you draw the line? (scenario: an editor makes a mess of articles that cannot easily be fixed). b) Should blocks, protects, and / or rollbacks be in order?


 * A5. I draw the line at content- if the content is not a good fit with the article based upon obvious sound reasoning, then I will revert it. However, if the content is relevant but just worded badly or references poorly, I will always aim to make it right without chopping it. Blocks and protects are very useful when it comes to vandals who inundate a page relentlessly, and I am very happy with the current process for protecting pages.


 * Thank you- I hope that answers all of your questions! Monsieurdl 16:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Risker (answered)
There is currently a proposal at the Village Pump (Policy) that policies be protected from free editing. Amongst the reasons for this suggestion is to prevent parties from revising policy in a way that favours their point of view, to prevent edit wars on active policies, and to maintain a stable policy base so that users can rest assured that they are staying within policy. Do you believe that this is a good course of action for the encyclopedia? Please respond from your perspective as a prospective member of Arbcom who would be responsible for interpreting policy (but feel free to add your opinion as an editor as well). I will be asking this question of all candidates. Thank you. Risker (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A1. This is in fact quite simple from the first point of view as a prespective member of ArbCom. I would oppose any such change from free editing as the basic goal of Wikipedia would be violated, and I reference the About section:


 * Visitors do not need specialised qualifications to contribute, since their primary role is to write articles that cover existing knowledge; this means that people of all ages and cultural and social background can write Wikipedia articles. With rare exceptions, articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet, simply by clicking the edit this page link. Anyone is welcome to add information, cross-references or citations, as long as they do so within Wikipedia's editing policies and to an appropriate standard. For example, if you add information to an article, be sure to include your references, as unreferenced facts are subject to removal.


 * There is no need to worry about accidentally damaging Wikipedia when adding or improving information, as other editors are always around to advise or correct obvious errors, and Wikipedia's software, known as MediaWiki, is carefully designed to allow easy reversal of editorial mistakes. 

This section explains perfectly why free editing is vital and right. As an editor, I would be of the same mindset with one addition- get rid of the IP edits. The IP edits are something that tend to be very disruptive, and by having people register time and time again if they are vandals, it slows them down considerably in my mind.

Thank you! I hope that was satisfactory. Monsieurdl 16:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from Blue Tie (answered)
1. Can/should Arbcom create wikipedia policy? Or develop a proposed policy for community vote?


 * A1. ArbCom should not create wikipedia policy as a body, but it should be actively involved in improving discovered problems within the process of arbitration. This helps to improve as a whole Wikipedia, and will help to prevent future problems down the road.

2. Do you intend to help create or propose wikipedia policy as an Arbcom member?


 * A2. I will always be involved in that process as cases will come up frequently that will no doubt cause policies to be reviewed contantly. I will add my input and help whenever I am asked or when I see the need!

Thank you. I hope you are satisfied! Monsieurdl 16:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

--Blue Tie 13:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from SilkTork (answered)
How would you vote on this proposed principle: "While anyone may edit Wikipedia without the need to register, that meta-editing activities such as voting in an ArbCom Election are best protected by registering than by sleuthing".


 * A1. I would vote support without hesitation- that is the precise reason why we have voter registration and accountability now here in the United States. Stuffing the ballot box has been eliminated, which is something I see as an important precedence Wikipedia should follow.

Thank you, and I hope that my answer was enough! Monsieurdl 19:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

 SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 17:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Irpen (answered)
The questions below refer to the issues of ArbCom's integrity and transparency that needs to be maintained despite the universally accepted view that certain things should remain private. Arbitrator's private mailing list, known as Arbcom-l and the arbitrators only IRC channel may obviously include information that cannot be made public under any circumstances. Additionally, being aware of the intra-ArbCom communication may give case parties an obvious advantage over their opponents. Who do you think should have access to such a list besides current arbitrators whose community trust has been confirmed in election that took place within the last 3 years? Should it include users that where never voted on? Should it include users who were voted 4, 5 or more years ago? Should users who are parties of the case, comment on the case, present evidence on the case, be allowed to have read access to the list where the case is discussed by the decision makers?
 * Mailing list


 * A1. I do not think anyone else should have access to the list besides those you mentioned as trusted. I do not think under any circumstances should those involved in any case have access to such lists because they have had ample time and means to present their case, and a decision will be based upon what they have presented and the evidence. Chaos would ensue if parties involved disrupted the communications between ArbCom members when making a judgment.

What is your opinion about the parties of the case (or anyone) contacting arbitrators privately about the case? This is not an hypothetical issue and it  has been brought up in past cases. The obvious drawback is that if charges are brought secretly, the accused cannot see them and respond. Would you support an amendment of the arbitration policy that would prohibit parties from writing to arbitrators privately in relation to the cases? Giving evidence that has to be private due to its sensitive nature would of course be exempted but should this be the only exception?
 * Secret evidence and secret communication of arbitrators with non-arbitrators


 * A2. I am opposed to any private communications whatsoever unless it involved personal privacy information such as identities, addresses, etc. with regards to legal matters. I would most certainly support any amendment brought forward that prohibited it, and as I said above, the exception you mentioned should be the only one.

Arbitrators who are parties of the case or have an involvement with the case parties that can reasonably be considered to affect their impartiality are expected to recuse. What involvement constitutes the ground for a recusal has traditionally been left to the arbitrators' own discretion, except for obvious cases when arbitrators themselves are case parties. While recused arbitrators, especially the case parties, are allowed to take an active part in cases, collect, present and discuss evidence at the case pages, the same way as ordinary parties, they retain the opportunity to read the thoughts of other arbitrators at Arbcom-L and respond to those privately. It is technically difficult to exclude arbitrators from communication on a case they are involved. But would you support a prohibition for such arbitrators to discuss the case with other arbitrators through the private communication channels, except when submitting evidence whose nature warrants non-publicity?
 * Recusals


 * A3. There is no doubt that I fully support a prohibition of recused arbitrators on the private channels- it provides an unfair advantage that is the reason for the recusal anyways! To me it is common sense to fully separate oneself from any case to which one has recused themselves. If it is technically difficult, then I would favor establishing a method by which a recused arbCom member could not access a certain comm channel- find one where it is possible if it must be done to assure impartiality.

Policies are written by the community and not by the ArbCom. However, at some point the ArbCom made it clear that the arbitration policy is exceptional in this respect and that the ArbCom intends to control the main policy that governs its own action rather than be governed by the policy written by the community. Would you support returning the control of the ArbCom policy back to the community or should the ArbCom write its policy itself?
 * Community oversight over the arbitration policy


 * A4. I cannot fathom why the ArbCom would be in control of its own policy- that makes entirely no sense, but I would listen to arguments presented as why it needs to be that way. Until solid, lucid arguments were presented, I would support the community making policy for the ArbCom for sure.

Thanks, and I hope you are satisfied! Monsieurdl 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)