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

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

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

Thanks for your time.  Majorly  (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Good questions, these. Let me think. Hmm.


 * We'll take the personality question first. Arbitratorial qualities? Well, let's see. Both physically and mentally, I'm restless. Never could cope with inactivity, always want to be doing something. This leads to a number of other issues; I have a tendency to want quick solutions, to want efficient ones, and I abhor overcomplication. Not a natural diplomat: I call things as I see them, which has, I think lead to something of a reputation for bluntness. I actually don't think arbitrators need to be especially diplomatic, unlike mediators. Swiftness and strength of purpose are more vital. The best answer, I think, is that I work on the principle of Occam's Razor; simplest == best. If simplest is Special:BlockIP, so be it.


 * Now, question two. Another good one, this! Let's think about my work as a sports coach, in particular for tennis. Now and again I'll take hold of a young kid's wrist and physically lead him through the shot, holding his wrist all the way. That shows him or her the correct technique, gets the technique into his muscles. But I can't do this all the time, can I? Not for all the shots he has to hit. My job is not to do it for him; it's to give him a framework in which he can best express himself as a tennis player and solve his own problems. Franz Stampfl, who coached Roger Bannister for the four-minute-mile, had very similar theories when it comes to running.


 * I think the arbitrator's job is similar. There aren't enough arbitrators to solve the problems of Wikipedia all in one go; there simply aren't enough arbitrators. The job of the arbitrator is to facilitate; to facilitate a way for compromise to be reached over article X, to set up a framework in which the edit warring and incivility that surrounds topic Y can be limited and stabilized. Facilitation is the key word, much as my job as a sports coach is to get others to solve their own problems within a certain framework.


 * I've tried to relate arbitrator work to my real-life experience by way of analogy - whether that's what you wanted, I don't know, but that's my interpretation of how best to answer the question. Moreschi Talk 22:04, 2 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?

Thanks, Wanderer57 21:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a horrible feeling this is aimed straight at me, isn't it? Isn't this to do with the homeopathy obsessive whom I blocked indefinitely just as an RFC on him was opening? No apologies there, I'm afraid.


 * More generally, I've been worried by low participation in RFCs for a while. RFC is a fair process but only if lots of outside, rational, opinions are given. Otherwise they can turn into harassment pages that do little but mar reputations. Well-attended RFCs == good. Neglected RFCs == potentially bad. Like all things in life, the sword is two-edged, and there's little we can do about this. Interesting to note, though, that the big RFCs of a year and half ago, or so, don't really seem to happen these days. Noticeboard threads are now in vogue - not necessarily an altogether desirable trend, I think. Moreschi Talk 22:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record, my question was absolutely not aimed at you. Thanks for your answer.  Wanderer57 23:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions by east718 (answered)
Thanks, east. 718 at 21:50, 11/2/2007
 * 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?
 * 2) 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?
 * They take longer than a pair of turtles trying to screw, it's really awful. Wounds fester, petty grudges grow into full-blown blood feuds. Two, three-month cases? Just a joke. Got to speed the process up somehow. As to how to fix it? Make a bigger ArbCom, split it into groups, get people to do shifts? It's been suggested before but there seems little impetus for reform.


 * Another idea was suggested by Dmcdevit: in obvious cases, the arbitrators would not bother with the rigmarole of a full case and would simply hold votes on the main RFAR page. Obvious revert warrior gets put on revert limitation, quasi-vandal gets banned. You could assist this by requiring users to collect sufficient evidence before requesting arbitration, in user subpages, as I did with Bharatveer. Not a bad idea, this, certainly worthy of investigation.


 * Question two, not altogether pleasant. Offhand, it's hard to think of anything that's actually passed that I really object to, though on occasion I've wondered if the arbitrators have ever read Fringe theories - unfortunately, I can't point to anything specific. I can certainly think of a number of users who have been to arbitration and somehow came back unscathed and unbanned - often remarkable tricks of wool-pulling! As regards proposed remedies there are dozens I take issue with now and again - the notorious "Clown" proposal in Attack sites being unfortunately far from alone (later: hang on a sec, that's not a good answer. Nobody liked that proposal, a better example would be stuff like this; it didn't pass me, but you know me, preventing disruption and removing trash is more important than rules, which are not set in stone anyway (see also User:Antandrus/IAR)). But these tend not to pass, which does give one confidence in the competence of the current Committee. The real issue is the overwhelming tedium we all undergo while the Committee get around to deciding yet another case in two months, which is beyond farce: it is tragic. Moreschi Talk 22:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * On later thought, it's probably good to mention Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2 as a case where I think the arbitrators missed the boat. Desysopping Rama's Arrow was the right decision, but the arbitrators passed up on a golden chance to properly nail the Great Hindutva Tag-Team Reverting Gang, and if that phrase leaves you confused, check out how many cases in User:Moreschi/The Plague/Useful links relate to Indian nationalism. As it is, we'll all shortly be back at ArbCom in another few months or so with the latest re-occurrence of this persistent problem. Moreschi Talk 14:25, 3 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?

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

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?

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

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?

Thanks for your consideration. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, your damned bitch is having her pups in my brain! Mozart adoration does not spare me from the torment!


 * Now! Answers! Number 2 first! I don't regard incivility and personal attacks as diseases; they are symptoms of something worse and more deep-rooted. Kill off the disease, the symptoms die; it's rare to find editors in whom incivility is their only blemish. I've been uncivil now and again - not proud of it, but haven't we all - simple stress is usually the problem - edit wars messing up your brain, or some such trouble. Solve that trouble and the incivility usually goes away. On the other hand, in the rare cases of editors who are habitually uncivil with no obvious trigger, civility supervisions for limited periods of time (am I not good with all this latest ArbCom jargon? And what was wrong with "parole"?) may be appropriate. Then again, one has to look at the quality of the contributions the user makes to the actual encyclopedia; if they're of a high quality, one has to act sensitively in these matters. Driving away top-notch article writers is something to be avoided at all costs.


 * Edit warriors - how to deal with them? In all honesty, I think "comprehensive editing restrictions" such as we saw in the recent Requests for arbitration/Bharatveer are one way to go: general editing restrictions, for especially produtive topics. such as applied in Armenia-Azeri Round 2 is another. The obvious advantages of banning (Armenia-Azeri Round 1 could definitely have done with a few more bans, it would have helped with wiping a cleaner slate) must be counterbalanced against the problem of sockpuppetry (yes, I know this is not fashionable, but bear with me). An example that immediately springs to mind is that of Hkelkar: in some ways, spread over a thousand sockpuppets, he's almost worse than when we had Hkelkar stuck in one account! I'm not suggesting Hkelkar should be unbanned, of course, I'm simply saying we have to play smart with our bans, but for more on this, see here. Single-purpose accounts, of course, should be ruthlessly topic-banned (we do not do enough of this), and if they violate this ban, kicked out for good. I think I also talk about this if you read User:Moreschi/The Plague. Regardless, I dislike consistent edit warring (we all revert more than we should now and again, but a sustained pattern is unacceptable) on principle: it is one of the prime indicators of a troll, and should be rewarded with stringent limitations, sweeping topic bans, and sitebans - the last not as final resort, either.


 * Adminship removal - tricky. I'm assuming we're talking about the current system, whereby most desysoppings are done through ArbCom, rather than my ideal of "easy sysop, easy desysop". So, where shall we start? General and persistent failures of judgment merit demopping, obviously. More specifically...weell, POV-pushing is on the top of my list of sins, followed by wheel-warring on multiple occasions (uncomfortable with permanent desysops for only one instance of wheel-warring), followed by a sustained pattern of both edit-warring and incivility, the edit-warring being the more important - as I said above, we all get stressed now and again. Oh, and using administrative tools in content disputes, but we define content dispute far too broadly. One reasonable person and a troll trying to pass off his blog as an RS does not a content dispute make, I'm afraid. I feel very strongly about this issue, but right now is probably not the time. As regards temporary suspension of adminship, Mr Gustafson said it himself: "Suspension works". I view suspension of adminship as a tool to be used when a normally competent administrator loses his head and does something very stupid as a one-off (too tired to think an example, maybe he blocks another admin for no good reason and then wheel-wars over it): the point of the suspension is to shock him back to normality. As we have seen, it can work.


 * 4. Bit easier, hopefully: all (since AFAIK the ArbCom has the authority to review community bans) requests that are in good faith, with a few exceptions; those that come from the clinically deranged and those that comes from nationalist-religious POV-pushers (unless they agree to big-time topic-banning): sanctified by God, these types are immune to reason; you will not reform them.


 * 5. 8 minutes to midnight here and I'm flagging. Not good! The easy answer is to appeal to Jimbo per the policy, but I don't approve of this, so no. If ArbCom cannot reach an agreement, my solution - and bear in mind this is one produced from a very sleepy mind - would be to get together a working committee of 10 users: 7 admins and three users familiar with the content issues, all uninvolved, to thrash out a solution, a compromise, for the Committee to approve - alternatively, if there's no hope of the Committee ever agreeing, just turn the whole hog over to these trusted users and let them act as they see fit, provided they can reach consensus amongst themselves. Speed would be the issue in this case, wouldn't it? You'd have to get all the machinery in motion pretty quickly. If that doesn't work, I guess you just open a big RFC on the issue and let the whole darn gang sorry, community, have their say, and take actions based on the result of that. Moreschi Talk 00:00, 3 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) 23:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your point is a good one. The crucial thing is for arbitrators to be elected who actually have the time to put in the work; another is for the arbitration committee to delegate (see my answer to Heimstern's question No.5 above) and consult and do so publicly (as a side effect, quite apart from time-saving, this would hopefully prevent arbitrators getting stuck in the notorious "arbitration bubble" and losing touch with reality - or should that be wikiality?). In my statement I say that I want the Committee to become more open and consultative; to consult the administrative corps and experienced users, to talk to subject experts and quality articles writers; this will save time, this will increase efficiency and fairness - and we will have a better Committee as a result. Moreschi Talk 09:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Dihydrogen Monoxide (answered) (more questions added) (answered)
What's your opinion on Jimbo's desysop of Zscout370? &mdash; H 2O &mdash;  00:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OOh, I don't suppose we could talk about something else, could we? The weather in London? Ever seen the YouTube clips of Farinelli? Levity apart, I was away for that week and as a consequence missed all the drama; I'll have to give my opinion from the information garnered since I got back.


 * Jimbo's block of Miltopia was justified, although I did like Miltopia - fun chap who made WP more amusing - trouble is I don't think he ever wrote much, and we can't have people spending all their time wrangling (then again, if we go by this rationale, we'd have to ban a good chunk of our more process-orientated admins. But anyway -). Zscout's unblock was not a good idea - yes, Jimbo's block was probably not explicitly covered by The Blocking Policy (since when did anyone listen to that thing anyway, least of all me?), but it was probably The Right Thing To Do.


 * Jimbo then desysopping Zscout370, however, was completely ridiculous, palpably absurd, and only guaranteed to increase drama. All Jimbo had to do was reblock Miltopia, clearly state that he was operating in his capacity as GodKing (in which capacity he can wheel-war) and that the matter was not open to debate. All the desysopping accomplished was a step up in Teh Drama Lulzy Levels. I am rather reminded of the (doubtless apocryphal) wartime saying "Britishers fight with their fists!" If you are having a dispute with someone that regards your mutual use of admin tools, you don't go and escalate things by bringing your steward tools onto the field of play! In retrospect, I would hope Jimbo will admit that he could have solved this dilemma without touching a steward button. However, the demopping's only for a week, and Jimbo has said he'll bow down to the ArbCom in future...so with luck, we've all been crying on ANI over nothing more than spilt milk. Moreschi Talk 10:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3 more things. One - will your ArbCom speeches contains as many uses of "lulz" and other suck kickass wording as the one above?  Two - What's the weather in London like?  Three - Got milk? &mdash; H 2O  &mdash;  00:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In the fridge, yes; right by the computer, no.


 * The weather in London? Used to be seriously crap, global warming has improved it massively. Long live the 4-by-4!


 * Question 1, on the other hand, has a serious point to it. It's true I'll often dress my points up in irreverent language, sometimes also in elaborate and fanciful rhetoric. I'm not doing this for a laugh; my aim is to provoke a reaction - not to stir up anger in the manner of a troll, but to try to get people to look beyond my use of language to really see the point I am trying to make. Again, sometimes I'll say something that seems illogical and strange in an off-the-cuff, aphoristic manner - it's not mental ejaculate, these things are justified by logic, even if quite often my logic is admittedly through-the-looking-glass material. I don't always like explaining my logic, and think it preferable if occasionally others work it out for themselves. So, if I should say something a little strange now and again (for instance "Wheel-warring is good!"), it doesn't mean I'm literally condoning wheel-warring, what I'm really getting at is...oh, I think we can let you work that one out, eh? Cheers, Moreschi Talk 15:29, 4 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? 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 02:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * WillToPower. Moreschi Talk 09:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from I (answered)

 * What, if anything, do you believe is wrong with the current arbitration process? This includes anything related to the Committee and its actions. If appointed, what do you intend to do to resolve these issues? i (talk)  05:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll regard this as more of a general question. I've talked about the slowness of the ArbCom above, and how to fix that. I've talked about the "closed shop" problem, and how to fix that. I've talked about the importance of consultation and delegation. So now I'll talk about other things.


 * Several weeks I stated publicly that if the ArbCom did not pull their collective socks up and start arbitrating, doing the work that we elected them to do, I, in my role as enforcing admin, would simply ignore their dictates and independently act as I saw fit. I also sent a couple of aggressive and rude posts to the mailing list to the same effect, desperately trying to provoke some sort of reaction out of the stasis, the morass of despair and sloth, that the ArbCom seemed to have sunk into with a massive case backlog. Thankfully the backlog has shortened since then. But what pushed me to such extremities? The slowness? Well, yes. Mostly. But there are also a few other issues.


 * I talk about this, a little bit, in The Plague (getting tired of linking to it). Boiled down, I feel the arbitration committee has been to focused on rules and process, and not enough on getting results, on preventing disruption. Hkelkar 2 is an example of this; yes Rama's Arrow had lost his head, and yes the desysopping was warranted, but the ArbCom missed the chance to go after the real trolls as Dbachmann, whose suggestions are usually correct, told them they should. I don't consider rules and process important besides result; ends justify means. We need a far more creative ArbCom, one willing to pursue imaginative solutions. We need a vision that sees a new heaven and a new earth, one that can adapt in a flexible, light, and agile way to the constantly shifting sands of Wikipedia - not some fossilized old irrelevance hidebound by process and "tradition" that's more laughing stock than competent dispute resolution group. Moreschi Talk 20:35, 3 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.  Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 17:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC) (Note:Generic question for all candidates, other candidates are WELCOME to copy this question in to their subpages)
 * There's quite a lot I don't understand here, so we'll have to do a list.


 * I don't understand how bestowing checkuser and oversight wound up as part of the ArbCom's job. Arbitration is supposed to be about dispute resolution, not distributing technical tools in this manner. I would have thought the arbitrators had quite enough on their plate without having to bother their heads about checkuser and oversight. At Commons they fit Requests for Checkuser into their Requests for Adminship process (or they did last time I checked). This strikes me as much more sane. Again, last time I checked checkuser and oversight were tools designed to serve the community as a whole, not just the arbitration committee. Ergo, surely the community should at least have a say in who gets these tools, within the limits stipulated by the Foundation.


 * I also don't understand: why we don't have more checkusers. RFCU has been quite badly backlogged recently, despite the heroic efforts of Deskana and Dmcdevit, and getting quick checkuser results is of great importance to the community; sockpuppets, like life, are a terminal disease for which we're not going to find one big cure, so we have to keep chipping away. In complex and/or fast-moving investigations swift checkusers are vital - yet apparently the ArbCom doesn't want any more. IMO we need at least 3. If I went and got a pistol and shot Deskana, where would we be then? Suppose, less melodramatically, he gets ill? Why the insistence of rationing and minimalism?


 * And that's another thing I don't understand: Wikipedia culture's obsession with minimalism. We've got just enough admins to keep our menial backlogs clear - just enough! We've got just enough bureaucrats to keep things ticking over - that's enough! We've got just barely enough checkusers - that's enough! Good heavens, the idea that we might possibly want more arbitrators - heresy! That's enough from you, m'lad! Are we all so scared of each other that we cannot dish out a few fairly unimportant tools a bit more liberally? Aren't we meant to assume a reasonable amount of good faith? So why the mania that dictates we must trust as few people as possible? Because, as the recent backlogs show, we don't have enough checkusers or enough arbitrators; we don't have enough admins to handle more complex instances of problems that need solving outside of penis vandalism and unfair fair-use images deletions! A grotesque image rises to mind of 5 million people slowly self-asphyxiating.


 * Somewhat irrelevant, that rant (although were I to get on the ArbCom I would push hard for more checkusers, at least), and I don't suppose that such a basic flaw in Wikipedia culture is something I, or anyone else, will be fixing any time soon. I'm just noting my discontent with what I view as an unhealthy aspect of Wikipedia - I don't understand why we prefer poverty to abundance. Moreschi Talk 22:22, 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 01:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I must confess I've missed out on the evident drama that surrounds these two accounts and have no idea what went on here (nor do I have much inclination to dig and discover). As regards alternate accounts in general, they're fine if used in good faith and not abusively; I've got a few myself tucked away in closets for occasional use now and again. Fleeing a bad reputation (obviously this doesn't apply to ban evasion) by setting up shop somewhere else, provided you try to behave better second time around, is not necessarily a bad thing - assuming the two accounts do not interact even if they do edit simultaneously, no problem. Abuse of alternate accounts, however, is beyond the pale, even if you do own up the abuse. I remember one troll trying to justify his ban evasion under IAR - an amusing piece of sophistry, but no. Moreschi Talk 15:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you think of Wikipedia Review? This is a Secret account 01:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think anything very much about Wikipedia Review, other than that the site is not a reliable source. I prefer to exercise my brainpower on more worthwhile subjects. Moreschi Talk 15:04, 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 03:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My background is largely a humanities one, and not science, but no reason not to have a go at this. Fringe theories presents a good take on this that I largely agree with; Wikipedia aims to reflect academic consensus, and this is a large part of what "reliability" is about. Peer-reviewed scientific literature must be cited when dealing with this area, and pseudoscientific trash must be explained in terms of it being such. We should mostly talk about scientifically wrong topics in the context of their wrongness. Non-notable fringe theories should not be mentioned at all; fringe theories as a whole are included solely on the basis of notability (in fact, extremely notable fringe theories may become notable enough for their own article). All of this is in accord with NPOV, I think. One simply has to pay proper attention to "verifiability" and "undue weight" clauses. Moreschi Talk 15:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions by Addhoc (answered)
1. Could you clarify to what extent you consider there is a problem of US nationalism?

2. What are your thoughts on use of the word "troll"?

Thanks! Addhoc 13:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * US nationalism tends not be of the "mystic zeal" type we get among Aryan supremacists and, of course, our Hindutva friends. It's mostly, I think, a product of the two-party American system political system, and usually takes the form of one side of the debate accusing the other of being "un-American", or, at least, less American than themselves. Of course, you've also got the whole issue of "America and Christianity" - that's Conservapedia for you, as Dbachmann points out - and this religious-nationalist balls is closely to linked to quack science advocacy (intelligent design, of course). Something that crops up now and again, but not one of the biggest problems. Lest I be accused of British snobbery (former colony etc), I should mention that I actually have dual nationality - British and US.


 * As regards troll, the question "what is a troll" is a fairly simple one to answer. Disruptive editors, as well as tendentious ones, are trolls - "troll" is just a quicker way of saying this. Basically, that boils down to any editor that's acting out of malice and/or assumes unwarranted amounts of bad faith, in addition to any user who's too darn thick to understand and act upon Wikipedia's policies - sufficiently advanced incompetence being indistinguishable from malice. Seeing as I tend to call spades spades, the term "troll" pops up quite a lot in my logs, usually the block log, attached primarily to indefinite blocks. If a user is being especially foolish on a talk page, I may also tell the others to DFTT. Moreschi Talk 15:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Question by Cla68 (answered)
Have you significantly edited any articles that currently enjoy Featured or Good Article status? Cla68 07:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The Fairy-Queen, Orfeo ed Euridice, Agrippina (opera), List of major opera composers, List of important operas, formerly Pro Milone, now delisted as part of typical GA silliness. I don't think much of either the GA or FA process, and much of my best stuff is ranked as neither: Gaetano Berenstadt, Anna Maria Strada, Johann Adolph Hasse, Antonio Bernacchi, Caffarelli. I quite often play Doctor Watson to the greater Sherlock Holmeses of this world: collaborations on Russian opera topics with User:Meladina (copyediting), and assisting the fantastic work of User:Voxclamans on castrato articles. Moreschi Talk 14:13, 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 I they have, feel free to just point me to a previous answer. Thanks for your time and good luck. WjBscribe 23:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * 2) 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?
 * 3) 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?
 * Three years is too long, terms should be for 18 months max, but that's another discussion. I'm not a huge fan of community recall processes; when arbitrators are elected the community should consider whether candidate X has sufficient self-perspective to know when he's screwed up and should step down.
 * Answer to question 2 is no. People do have busy lives, sometimes, and we need all the help we can get, even if it occasional. Of course, I don't think ArbCom should have power over checkuser and oversight in this manner, but again, that's another argument.
 * ArbCom cannot formulate policy! The community must decide! Your role is dispute resolution only, arbitrators!
 * Sorry, I just don't buy this. Yes, ArbCom is about dispute resolution, but if the community is in dispute over a potential policy, why can't the ArbCom resolve this? Isn't this just a deeper application of the term "dispute resolution"? All power corrupts, and absolute power is actually pretty neat. Moreschi Talk 12:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Martintg (answered)
In regard to your view of the "nationalist plague" infecting Wikipedia:
 * 1) When Stalin crushed the Georgian Communist Party under the guise of suppressing what he called "bourgeois nationalism" after the occupation of Georgia by the Red Army in 1922, Lenin criticised Stalin in his article "The Question of Nationalities or Autonomization" in December 1922: "In my writings on the national question I have already said that an abstract presentation of the question of nationalism in general is of no use at all. A distinction must necessarily be made between the nationalism of an oppressor nation and that of an oppressed nation, the nationalism of a big nation and that of a small nation." Do you think a distinction should be made for different forms of "nationalism", or is there a need to combat all forms of "nationalism" equally? Martintg 03:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this where I'm supposed to say that it's quite all right for those poor, oppressed Baltic states to get revenge against Big Evil Russia on Wikipedia? Ain't going to happen. Nationalistic editing of all kinds is a fundamental violation of Neutral point of view. Most people seem to forget that is our fundamental policy. Moreschi Talk 09:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the question was intended to test whether you understood that the term "nationalist/nationalism" can sometimes have different intepretations depending upon one's POV or can be used to serve some political agenda. The example I cited above attempted to illustrate that Communist party members were routinely purged after being accused of "nationalism". The reason I asked this question was that your essay on the "nationalist plague" seemed to group together extreme ethnic supremacist fringe theorists with those who believe that people have a legitimate right to self-determination. I have further questions in light of your response:
 * 1) How exactly is adding sourced material critical of the Soviet Union construed as taking "revenge against Big Evil Russia"?
 * 2) Under what circumstances should an arbitrator recuse themselves from cases? Would having a particularly strong view point on the background of a case be sufficient reason? Martintg 20:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH.
 * 2) No. Moreschi Talk 22:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've got related questions as well.
 * Does Great Russian chauvinism, as it is pursued by some well-known authors here in Wikipedia, constitute nationalist excesses (let's say, “true Russians' revenge against evil Eastern Europe”)? Do you agree that there is such an issue at all in Wikipedia?
 * Yous disregard martintg's idea of “adding sourced material critical of the Soviet Union.” Do you then regard the glorification of the Soviet regime as a continuation of proletarian internationalism (as opposed to evil nationalism)?
 * Am I right in that case when I presume that by your opposition to nationalism you suggest that the great powers' interests should prevail as opposed to the right to self-determination of the evil nationalists?193.40.5.245 09:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

University of Tartu - hello again, Digwuren! You are banned, so I suppose I should roll these back, but they are good questions. Hmm, now I think about this some more I suspect that all of Wikipedia is going to have a slight Great Power bias that there's not much we can do about. History is written by the winners, Great Powers are winners, Wikipedia reflects written history. And so on. Moreschi Talk 13:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes and yes, to both questions. Witness my current opposition to Russia passing FAC, and the reasons why.
 * No, I do not. How much time I have spent rolling back and blocking pro-Soviet nutcases like User:Jacob Peters? A lot. I don't disregard Martintg's idea of "“adding sourced material critical of the Soviet Union." There's nothing wrong with this per se, when such sourced negative material is appropriate. The problem with Denial of Soviet occupation was that it was a classic POV fork and case of WP:SYNTH. But pro-Soviet puffery is just another form of Russian nationalism, combined with nostalgia. Rollback away!
 * No, you are not. I suppose my UK background does give me an unconscious bias in favour of "great powers", but I do my best to recognise the impulse within myself and counter it whenever possible. My opposition is not to nationalism in itself, but to POV editing, of which nationalist and pseudoscientific trollery are the two most common and despicable forms. "Great power" nationalism ("America and Christianity", Greater Russian chauvinism) is no better than Catalonia-related nationalism, for example. Moreschi Talk 09:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the winners write the history. The West won the Cold War, the Soviet Union collapsed and these former Eastern Bloc countries within the Soviet sphere thus emerged winners too. Thanks for your answers. Martintg 19:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

PS, you missed this question: Under what circumstances should an arbitrator recuse themselves from cases? Martintg 19:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * When they are personally involved with the people concerned, or when they feel they have a strong conflict of interest surrounding the issues at hand. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 14:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Fedayee (answered)
1) In your statement, you find it very important to prevent POV pushing and edit warring.


 * a) How would you handle a situation in which a user loses his cool and tries chasing systematic edit warriors with personal attacks? And...


 * b) Would you, as an arbitrator, try understanding circumstances in which the user lost his cool, OR would you place, like most other administrators and/or arbitrators, NPA as the most important policy, no matter under which circumstances (stressing on the no matter under which circumstances), overshadowing every other policy.

2) Do you engage yourself to read all the evidence presented before making a judgement? While by principle, arbitrators are supposed to do that, it is my conviction and from experiences that this is not done every time.

3) Do you believe that arbitrators should explain the rational of their judgement?

4) And finally, do you believe that consistency is important in a judgement? Similar evidences requiring similar finding of facts and similar remedies.

Thanks. - Fedayee 03:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Question 1a is, I think, mostly addressed above when I replied to Heimstern's questions. Answer to question 1b is yes, I will look at circumstances and try to understand them; NPA is not the God Of All Policies, NPOV is (I actually think I might be paraphrasing Jimbo here).
 * 2) Yes. I could never think of a situation in which I would not look at all the evidence. Never? Well, hardly ever...
 * 3) Yes. Something the current ArbCom don't do enough. Understanding is a necessary condition for proper obedience. The exception is when dealing with matters of privacy.
 * 4) While consistency is very important, it is equally necessary that the ArbCom does not become hidebound by precedent, a concept which sounds all very fine and dandy until you start thinking about the potential effects of binding bad precedents. Precedent is the mortal enemy of creativity and humility, and the best friend of tedious wikilawyers who wouldn't ordinarily say boo to a baby, let alone a goose. Moreschi Talk 13:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick and convincing replies. Good luck man. - Fedayee 18:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from jd2718

 * 1) To what degree should ArbCom look at and treat administrators differently from non-administrators?
 * 2) If you could by fiat change one WP rule, policy, guideline, or practice, what would you choose? Why?
 * 3) Without specific reference to yourself or other candidates, what qualities, characteristics, or experiences would you be looking for in an arbitrator? What qualities, characteristics or experiences might lead you to oppose a candidate?
 * 4) I've seen it written that to be a good arbitrator, a WPian needs to first be a good editor. Do you agree or disagree with the sentiment? How do you consider your own editing?
 * 5) Are you 15? 25? 55? Are you a student? Do you have an occupation that lends itself to allowing you time to be involved in ArbCom? Jd2718 07:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Very little, certainly as far as content is concerned. As far as user conduct...there's an argument that says admins, because they were trusted community members and have (usually) done lots of helpful work, should be given one more chance. Something in that.
 * 2) Write an upgraded version of WP:SPA and make it policy. "Disruptive single-purpose account" is one of the most common reasons why I block someone. At the moment current practice in this area is split between admins who comprehend the damage persistent, manic SPAs can do, and those who don't.
 * 3) Creativity, imagination, strength of purpose, willpower, devotion to NPOV, will to power. All good qualities, these. Bad qualities; craven recitation from the Big Book of Policies, dullness, devotion to abstract ideals and not practicalities, placing means over ends.
 * 4) Yes. Agreed. My own editing? Pretty solid. I have my little biases - I tend, in castrato articles, to insert personal anecdotes, perhaps at the expense of leaving out a few minor Italian cities where Berenstadt might have sung in 1736 - mostly because I think I want to show the human side of these people, that they weren't just "machines made for singing"; so, for instance, I devote some space to Berenstadt's fascination with fine arts and rare manuscripts. Again, I have a bias towards real scholarship, and not blogcrap off the intarwebz - check out List of important operas, one big summary of scholarly opinion that I'm quite pleased with - but is this really a bad thing?
 * 5) Not relevant. Not relevant. Yes. Cheers, Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 10:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up to #5 by jd2718
I certainly accept that no one has an obligation to answer age or profession questions. I asked them to help determine stability and availability over the course of a three year term (an ongoing concern with ArbCom). Could you direct some general remarks to these concerns? Jd2718 13:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, fair enough. I'd feel uncomfortable giving any particular details, but I can say with some confidence that for the next couple years I should be OK. Third year of these ridiculous three-year terms may be trickier. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 13:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Revolving Bugbear
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)
 * Not relevant. Legal threats only come under the ArbCom's purview as far No legal threats specifies. Threats of litigation against the WikiMedia Foundation are dealt with by the Foundation, and are not the concern of the arbitration committee of the English Wikipedia.


 * We have plenty of articles that violate the laws of many countries. These are called copyright violations, and we delete them. Shitty BLPs, libellous ones? Delete them as well and ask that they be rewritten properly, if at all. This has pretty much already been dealt with in Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 17:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Piotrus
--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you think an arbitrator should be active in all cases he has no conflict or interests in?
 * 2) If the arbitrator is active, should he be expected to comment in workshop / arbcom discussion pages?
 * 3) 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?
 * 4) How can WP:CIV and similar issues be enforced? Should they be enforced as efficient as 3RR?
 * 1) Ideally, yes. As a practical manner this isn't going to happen, but we can but try.
 * 2) Yes. Arbitrators should explain their thinking at least in part, to avoid the aura of distant GodKing pronouncements that can often appear out of touch with reality.
 * 3) I'm afraid I don't buy into the idea of equality very much (does it really make sense when you take a close look?), but either way, it depends on what the relative newcomer is doing. If all he's doing is trolling and being incivil, banninate his arse. With the older user, his productive article contributions do give him a certain degree of leeway as far as civility is concerned. When it gets to the stage that he's driving off other productive editors, you have to clamp down.
 * 4) Perhaps, when someone gets around to rewriting Civility so it's a lot shorter and actually makes coherent sense. At the moment it's just a seemingly random collection of nonsense. How can you enforce such a useless policy? It's just not doable. At the moment any debate over how to enforce this particular policy is strictly theoretical. A policy that commands no respect will be ignored, and there's sweet FA we can do about this. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 19:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from futurebird

 * 1) Do you feel that civility is important? Are you generally more or less civil to some users depending on the the ideas they express?
 * 2) What forms of systemic bias do you feel are most problematic across the wikipedia? Can you give an example of an article that is as of today in need of work due to systematic bias?
 * 3) Are "diverse points of view" important? That is, in order for an article to be written from a NPOV might it be important to consider "diverse points of view"? Or is NPOV a policy that dictates that there is only one correct point of view, the neutral one?
 * 4) Before becoming involved in an incident as an admin how do you decided if you can be neutral or not?

futurebird (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Civility is reasonably important (BTW, I never got round to telling you that "process wankery" was most assuredly not directed at your good self). Civility to good-faith users is very important indeed. Outright trolls can be treated more neutrally. Civility is something that must be earned, not an automatic right, and Neutral point of view is always more important. Incivility is not a blight in itself, it is an indicator - either of trolling, or of stress.
 * 2) I guess I know what answer I'm supposed to give, but I'm not going to bother. Most really bad systemic bias problems emerge when people copy-and-paste from Britannica 1911 (why, oh why, did we ever allow this?) or that wretched Catholic Encyclopedia 1913. Apart from that - I'm no fan of affirmative action - Wikipedia is here to reflect things as they are, not as they should be (see also Requests for arbitration/Jean-Thierry Boisseau, the Tragedy Of A Man Who Did Not Get This).
 * 3) Of course diverse points of view are important, and within each individual's editing he should try to accommodate plentiful POVs in an accurate summary. What is NOT acceptable is simply to push your own POV as hard and fast as you can, in the hope that everyone else's POV-pushing will balance the equation out. Wikipedia cannot work this way.
 * 4) Neural? This brings to mind all sorts of amusing images of me conducting neurological tests on myself before editing - I think we assume that's a typo for neutral :) In which case, it's not even that desirable, sometimes, that I be absolutely neutral. The principles we apply to articles don't necessarily carry over to user conduct! One has to think about these things holistically. If I know something about the subject matter, that can help nail disruptive users - then again, if I don't, this will help me stay impartial. Do I know the users involved? In some cases knowing them can be disqualification, in other cases it can be useful. One has to look at the context. It also depends on what you're going to do. If you're going to block or ban people, then it helps to be pretty much impartial. If you're simply going to enact various acts of rape and pillage to the article, and only do discipline as a side-note, then slightly less so. Really, it all depends. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 22:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Points of View: When does including "notable" points of view become problematic for NPOV?
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)
 * I must admit I don't follow political articles very much, but I agree that the dualism of US politics is reflected on Wikipedia, and not always in a positive way. Whether the specific picture you paint is accurate, I am not competent enough to tell. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 21:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from AniMate
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)
 * Agreed with your sentiments, answered above in another reply. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 17:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Additional question from jd2718
A large proportion of the cases that are accepted by ArbCom involve nationalist disputes. Do you have an opinion as to why this is so? Should ArbCom treat these topics, articles, editors or cases differently than those in other areas? Jd2718 (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Written a whole lovely-jubbly essay on this, User:Moreschi/The Plague. Highly recommended reading! Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 17:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Cla68
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) 00:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Neither the cyberstalking mailing list nor its child, wpinvestigations-l. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 11:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Rschen7754

 * 1) What are your views regarding debates such as WP:RFAR/HWY and WP:SRNC? (In terms of dispute resolution).
 * 2) 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?
 * 3) 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)
 * 4) a) What is your definition of canvassing? b) Does it include project newsletters or IRC?
 * 5) 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?

Thank you. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There's clearly a history here I know practically zilch about. Ergo, I'm reluctant to answer these. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 16:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Ramdrake
--Ramdrake (talk) 11:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) How would you best define NPOV in your own terms?
 * 2) In a content dispute, what would you say are the permissible limits of WP:IAR?
 * 3) How important is it to you to review all available evidence and all possible sides of a dispute in a dispute case?

Questions from User:Krator
1. In the first paragraph of your statement, you write "... whether with stains on my character is for you to decide." Do you think you walked away with stains on your character?

2. You contribute to Veropedia. Suppose reliable viewing statistics were published in a few months, showing that the average article received two hits from non-editors in that month. Would you stop contributing to that project? In other words, does the value you ascribe to your contributions to that project decrease when it is established that no one reads them? User:Krator (t c) 14:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hell, how many people read Pietro Mingotti? Or Antonio Bernacchi? Or Margherita Durastante? Not many, I'd warrant. But even if these, my articles, are not widely read, I can but hope that someday some student of opera's long and glorious history may find them useful. Surely they will at some stage in humanity's future history.


 * As to the first, that's surely neither here nor there? You decide, not me. My judgment would, in this instance, be pretty biased :) Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 16:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Risker
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)

Question from Jreferee
Less than 24 hours ago, you used your Admin tools to undo another's administrative actions on a page you created. As a member of Arbcom, how would you address admins using their tools to take action on pages for which they have a conflict of interest? -- Jreferee    t / c  09:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So, desysop me. NOBODY should receive any sort of sanction, ever, for reversing actions taken against consensus and common sense on a user subpage, of all petty and meaningless places. In fact, I'd be highly tempted to say it should not be the business of the ArbCom to concern themselves with user subpages, ever. Let the community sort those out. It's all so trivial. I felt annoyed about this - I was not contacted before the MfD opened, and then when consensus was clearly in my favour, someone turns up citing some wretchedly obscure policy in flagrant contradiction of the view that we're all here to improve the encyclopaedia. Because that's what I'm trying to do - if good people feel that they can save their work where it can't be trashed by rogues, we'd see a lot more quality editors actually contributing, especially to core articles. I try to improve this place - get more quality contributions - and what thanks do I get? An MfD. I don't even own shares in Veropedia, and Danny hasn't got the decency to pay me to spam :) All out of the goodness of my heart, really...Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 16:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Outriggr
I am asking nominees who have indicated an affiliation with the for-profit encyclopedia Veropedia the following. Your indication is on your user page and also in a page linked from your signature.
 * 1) Can you explain how a Wikipedia editor like me (one who is not that familiar with the detailed workings of ArbCom) can trust that the positions you take on the ArbCom, if elected, would be free of conflict with your activities on Veropedia and your interests stemming from that organization? Thank you. – Outriggr  § 07:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Veropedia is about article work. It should not be that hard to keep efforts relating to content creation/improvement and dispute rsolution separate. I simply can't see much of a possible tension between Vero and ArbCom, sorry! Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 17:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

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

2. Do you intend to help create or propose wikipedia policy as an Arbcom member? --Blue Tie 13:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I suspect I've partially answered this above, but if the arbitrators ever do find they have some spare time from the usual job of DR, no reason they can't nudge the community along the hall to wisdom if deadlock among the masses occurs. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 17:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * thanx--Blue Tie 22:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from User:Atabek
Dear Moreschi, your consistent interpretation of the ArbCom principles and remedies in this case have brought some calm and balance in editing, for a short while, though this balance is now being lost again. In this light, I have some questions:


 * 1. Do you think a fuzzy definition of remedies in the above case have actually helped to enforce WP:NPOV and reduce the scale of edit warring, or do you think this ArbCom case on the whole was a failure?
 * 2. Would you agree that future arbitrations in this particular conflict shall focus on remedies applied to articles rather than to selected contributors?
 * 3. It seems to me that stronger and truly independent article mediation efforts would fare better in this case than the arbitrary application of remedies by administrators. Would you agree with such a position?
 * 4. How important, in your mind, is WP:AGF in the enforcement practices?
 * 5. What's your interpretation of the popular Wikipedia term disruptive editing?

Thanks and best of luck. Atabek 14:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from SilkTork
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".  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 17:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd be unlikely to be voting on such a principle anyway, appears to have little to do with dispute resolution - but yes, that sounds reasonable enough, at least at first glance. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 20:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional question from jd2718
Can you help me understand this nomination? On her blog, she indicated that both her run for ArbCom last year, and that RfA were both trolling. Do you believe her? Were you aware of this? Jd2718 02:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Trolling is not necessarily a bad thing. Of course, I knew the RFA had virtually no chance of passing - we all did, Kelly included. But "virtually no chance" is not the same as "no chance", and I felt it a worthwhile use of my time to point out certain problematic issues I feel afflict the English Wikipedia's community - had it succeeded, I think it would have been a fine symbol of reconciliation between warring parties. Of course, it didn't work, as we all know and I fully expected at the time - but what can you do? It's life. You take the knocks, come back tomorrow stronger. Interestingly, at the time Riana got quite a lot of "WTF were you thinking/Courageous woman (but mad)!" emails - I got none, which leads me to think people had given up on me already :) It was hardly a question of putting credibility on the line. Cheers, Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 20:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Irpen
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

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

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

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

Question from Mrs.EasterBunny
Thank you for your participation in DYK where I've seen your name before.

As a member of ArbCom, would you place more emphasis on content or behavior? For example, in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds case, there is voluminous discussion on whether SevenofDiamonds is really NuclearUmpf, but no discussion on what got NuclearUmpf banned in the first place. If SevenofDiamonds=NuclearUmpf, then this is a behavioral problem but doesn't have to be a content problem. If SevenofDiamonds edit was reasonable (I have not researched it) would it make a difference?

The above may not be the best example but it's one that I recently saw because I can't remember the parties involved in similar cases. On occasion, I have seen an editing admin block someone because of a dispute in editing an article that both of them are editing and the block seemed questionable because there is no overt POV. The blocked editor then probably feels the block is unjustified and creates a sock. Many times, people running for WP office will cite a clear cut case of someone with bad editing and bad behavior. However, what if there is good editing and improper block (which would point to admin misconduct about content), followed by sock creation justified because the block was improper (which would point to editor misconduct about behavior)? Does the first crime excuse the second? Or is the second one crime much more serious and punishable? (This is not an easy question because excusing the first crime by the admin would tend to increase the workload of ArbCom because it allows admin to do a lot with less oversight. However, excusing the second crime might seem to encourage socks). Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from wbfergus
What is your position on the following? wbfergus undefinedTalk 15:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A policy page has had a very active discussion for many months. All sides (loosely termed 'pro-change', 'anti-change' and 'issue-specific') of proposed changes have made their cases back and forth numerous times. The 'pro-change' group is mainly users, with a few Admins. The 'anti-change' group is mainly Admins (including those who helped write the policy over the years) and a few users. The 'issue-specific' group is a mixed collection of users and Admins, but mainly users. All three groups constitute around 40-50 people total, per announcements on the Village Pump and related policies, to garner more widespread community involvement either way.
 * 1) After numerous discussions, and comments over a span of several days to several weeks on specific issues, what should constitute a consensus? 60%, 75%, 90%, or unanimous approval?
 * 2) If around 75% agree to a change, is it appropriate for Admins (especially those who helped write the policy) to revert changes and protect the page from further edits against their approval?
 * 3) Is it appropriate for 6 or 7 Admins to more or less block changes to a policy through protection and reverts, when very active discussions have been ongoing and the majority of those participating constructively (not just saying "No" or "Oppose" without constructive comments) agree to changes?
 * 4) Would it be appropriate for such a policy page which does clearly have a disputed section to have a tag in that section stating that section is under dispute and to participate on the talk page?
 * 5) Should policies solely dictate acceptable and unacceptable content, behaviour, etc., or should they also define Wikipedia-specific terms and definitions (without stating so) that conflict with usage in different disciplines, or should such terms and definitions be more appropriately suited in a guideline linked to and from the policy?
 * 6) Do you agree that policies are meant for enforcement or 'enforceable actions', while guidelines are meant to give guidance?
 * For the record, I feel that I need to close my questions to all candidates, as one of the editors in the above 'subject' has filed an ArbCom request. As such, it could be interpreted as unseemly or whatever for these issues to be addressed in this forum. I was in the process of cancelling my questions and replying in an RfC and the related ArbCom request when I had to leave to take my wife to a Dr. appointment, so pardon the delay in cancelling this. wbfergus undefinedTalk 21:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from Pinkville
Wikipedia is a community that produces and maintains a (still-nascent) encyclopaedia. This community has particular social and political structures that define it and that, presumably, affect the character, quality, and depth of its encyclopaedic output. Can you briefly summarise some political and social aspects of the Wikipedia community that you consider important or noteworthy, that perhaps need to be challenged or developed? How does the structure of Wikipedia encourage or inhibit access to decision-making and issues of power/control? Or does any of that matter? And what are the implications for the Arbitration Committee and its members? Pinkville (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)