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

Questions from Daniel

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Q1: Something in the back of mind is hinting that you are/were a member of the Arbitration Committee on the English Wikinews. Could you please explain what involvement you had with the English Wikinews AC, and how you think it may help you on the English Wikipedia AC, if at all? Daniel 01:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

A fine question. The English Wikinews Arbitration Committee was an idea that came out of the ongoing fighting that was plaguing Wikinews. The arbitration case happened, a problematic administrator retired, another problem user ultimately was community banned, and now that that fight is over, the committee has not had the opportunity to take on a case since. I was elected after that ArbCom case finished, so I essentially did nothing while serving on the committee, which is why I don't brag about it much. I ultimately resigned from the Wikinews ArbCom in tandem with my resignation from Wikinews adminship because I did not wish to be active with Wikinews administrative activities. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 01:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Questions from Majorly

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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) 01:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

1. I am receptive to new ideas and differing opinions, and I tend to listen to arguments with a sympathetic ear. My thought process can argumentative and thorough in that it is possible for me to take a statement and end up having a lengthy debate in my head over what the meaning of it is. I am willing to ditch my own argument if it turns out there is a better argument; I won't arrogantly stick to my argument if it turns out that my argument is lousy and I end up not approving of it. I don't like labeling people as trolls without considerable judgment first; if their argument sounds plausible, then I'll listen. Best of all, I like helping whenever I can help, because I really don't like it when people fight. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 02:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
2. Since Wikipedia is basically my life, the only real life activity I could relate Wikipedia dispute resolution to is my own personal problem solving, usually involving my school life. For example, if I am running low marks in a class, I will figure out what exactly I need to do to improve. From this, I've learned that I need to have confidence, that things can ultimately work out, and that a moderate amount of pressure can improve me. I can take these life lessons and apply them to Wikipedia dispute resolution. No, my school work will not be distracted by the Arbitration Committee; I learned a long time ago how to balance out school and non-school. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 02:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Questions from east718

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

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. There are certain benefits to a young mind, and others to a grizzled veteran's. How do you think your age will affect you in performing your duties as an arbitrator?

Thanks, east.718 at 01:41, 11/1/2007

1. The average case does take a long time, and as far as I know that has to do with the massive effort needed to bring all the parties', AND the arbitrators' thoughts together since it cannot all happen simultaneously. Personally, I would rather see a case take as long as necessary. The Islamophobia mediation case started in August. It is now November, and I have yet to close it. Rather than rushing it, I want to make sure that every pertinent issue is addressed, that nothing falls through. I will deal with the case as long as it takes. One thing the ArbCom could do to remedy the issues that you address is, at the end of a case, ask the involved parties if they feel the issues have been addressed. Additionally, I have employed a technique in which multiple discussions — one for each issue — are held concurrently to make the most out of whatever time there is. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 02:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
2. Adolescence is hell; anyone who has been through it will tell you that. I tend to think more angrily, and react more bitterly to negative things that occur, but that doesn't mean my mind is paralyzed. I am capable of considering a situation rationally, and I am becoming better and better at putting my anger aside and considering things for what they are. As arbitrator I hope to present my viewpoint, which might have to do with my age, or it may not, I don't know. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 02:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Question from I

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

1. What, if anything, do you believe is wrong with the current arbitration process, and/or the committe? This includes anything related to the committee and its actions. If appointed, what do you intend to do to resolve these issues? i ^(talk) 02:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
   • Too absorbed in pointless drama. As arbitrator, I'd do my best to keep cases on-point and not distracted by stupidity. Focus on what the problem is, what caused it, what the effect was, and how to solve it. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 02:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Questions from RockMFR

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

1. You currently describe yourself as "one of the original conspirators behind Veropedia". Veropedia does not appear to currently give any attribution information for the content there besides "Veropedia is based on Wikipedia". Do you believe Veropedia is compliant with the GFDL?
   1. There's actually an option in the menu that will take you to the specific revision of the Wikipedia article, but apparently it is not working. Though in general, attribution could be more prominent. In short, it's getting there, all the revision stuff is there I think but not accessible. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 02:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
      1. They actually just fixed it, so going to an article, selecting "Article", then "History", then clicking "Wikipedia Version" will take you to the exact version Veropedia uses. Still, attribution could be more prominent. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 02:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
2. Do you think Wikipedia itself is compliant with the GFDL?
   1. It's probably as compliant as it will ever get. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 02:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
3. What is your general opinion on use of fair use images on Wikipedia?
   1. I believe there are very legitimate cases of fair use, where a fair use image is better than nothing (it's usually the opposite case). Fair use images are currently overused and should be significantly trimmed, but unfortunately a consensus will not be achieved on where to draw the line anytime soon. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 02:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
4. Do you believe you would be an active arbcom participant?
   1. Probably, as I have sufficient time for Wikipedia-related activity. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 02:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
5. Can you give an example of an arbcom decision that you disagree with?
   1. The Naming Conventions RFAR. To quote the Wikipedia Signpost, "A case regarding a dispute over whether articles without alternative meanings should be disambiguated for the sake of clarity - for example, Never Kill a Boy on the First Date (Buffy episode). While about 80% of involved editors said in a straw poll that it should not be disambiguated, both sides allege that editors on the other have behaved disruptively. As a result of the case, the committee declared that "it is the responsibility of the administrators and other responsible parties to close extended policy discussions they are involved in", but did not impose any penalties for violations of consensus, although Izzy Dot was banned for two weeks for sexual harassment." While they were right not to act punitively over a page naming disagreement, they didn't really solve anything; they just stated what we all already knew. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 02:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. --- RockMFR 02:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Questions from Picaroon

Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

• Please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007#2007's case workload - reference for potential candidates 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?
  • Fortunately, I have much time to contribute to Wikipedia, and so I will most likely be able to participate in the cases ArbCom receives. I understand arbitrators not being active enough is a problem, and I don't wish to plague the ArbCom as yet-another non-active member. However, should something come up and I have no time for ArbCom activity whatsoever, then I would contemplate resignation. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 15:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
• 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?
  • That is a really good question. First of all, if an arbitrator resigned in disgrace, or they were expelled (though that has never happened, and I hope it doesn't), they should obviously not have access to the mailing list. In any case, board members, former arbitrators in good standing, maybe clerks, and perhaps users that the ArbCom enjoys consulting sound like good auxiliary members of the mailing list. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 15:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
• 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).
  • I disagree in part with how the Badlydrawnjeff ArbCom case came out. I know it has been courtesy-blanked, so I'll try to reference it as minimally as possible. My point is that I disagree with the use of sanctions like "cautioned", since in the end, after two months of high-profile drama, pretty much nothing happened. I understand that it's not always necessary to punish people, but after the case happened, Badlydrawnjeff pretty much disappeared (I would too, after all that) and Violetriga continued to do what she was admonished for in the ArbCom case. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 21:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
• 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.
  • I have used two alternate accounts. The first one I created after I felt like getting away from my username for a while; it made two posts to the village pump and has not been used for editing since. The second is a copyedit account which I have used for the novel luxury of being a nobody who edits. I do not feel comfortable disclosing the account names, but I assure you they have been used 100% for innocuous edits. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 15:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
• 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)?
• There are times in which there is a touchy matter that the ArbCom cannot discuss publicly. I have enough faith in the ArbCom that they only do this for a Really Good Reason, since they do it once every almost never. A good reason to argue a case in private would be if it had to do with personal details of the editors involved, like in the latter Nathanrdotcom case. In general, though, cases should occur on public ArbCom pages. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 15:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
• What do you think of Jimmy Wales desysop of Zscout370 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) a few days ago? (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/My desysop of Zscout370‎)? What should he have done differently, if anything? What role should the committee have had in this?
  • I was absolutely furious, because I saw it as Jimmy Wales desysopping someone whom he disagrees with as a kneejerk reaction to having his judgment questioned. He probably had the positive intent of preventing a wheel war from occuring, but still, he could have reacted much better. My personal opinion was that Jimbo was right to block Miltopia, but Zscout370 was wrong to unblock him without taking it up with Jimbo. Jimbo was even wronger in desysopping Zscout370. It would have been ideal to see Zscout370 registering his disagreement with Jimbo, and if the trend shows that people are overall not happy with the block, Jimbo could undo it and admit his mistake. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 15:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
• 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?
  • I've noticed that the ArbCom seldom hands out bans of undefined duration, opting instead for the equally effective one-year ban. A good case for indefinite ban would be if a user has gone through all of dispute resolution, has had all sorts of trouble with the ArbCom, and is not reformed after parole or a lengthy ban. After every last option has been exhausted (that includes the one-year ban), then an indefinite ban would be good. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 15:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
• What constitutes a wheel war? Was the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN situation a wheel war? How about Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar? Thanks for your time, Picaroon (t) 02:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • A wheel war is where an admin action is done and undone back and forth. The blocking-then-unblocking of Sadi Carnot constituted a wheel war, as well as the blocking-then-unblocking of Equazcion. The wheel war over BJAODN was interesting... it was kind of a wheel war, except with months of peace in between. When the first delete-then-undelete occured, it wasn't a wheel war, but when it happened again, then people realized it was a problem. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 15:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Questions by Jaranda/Jbeach56

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

• What do you think about self-admitted alternative accounts, see User:MOASPN, and User:Privatemusings as an example? Jbeach ^sup 03:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • As long as alternate accounts are declared at both ends and no attempts are made at deception using alternate accounts, then they should be fine. If they ever become a problem, then they become a problem. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 15:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
• What do you think of Wikipedia Review? Jbeach ^sup 03:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • They have some valid concerns about Wikipedia, though some of the users are a bit eccentric, and sometimes their comments border on being problematic. I especially don't approve when they try to out editors, or do something equally annoying, and I really wish Wikipedians would not react to them as it causes drama to boot. As you may know, I am a registered poster at Wikipedia Review, and I have posted on occasion (I don't really want to make a ritual of it), and it's kind of amusing. No, I won't do anything stupid. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 15:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, that is my same opinion of WR Jbeach ^sup 17:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Questions from Heimstern

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

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?

People engage in edit warring for different reasons. They may do it because they are protective of their version of the article, or because they adamantly believe that a passage that is being reinserted is inappropriate, or simply to be annoying. If a person gets in an edit war once because they were particularly annoyed over something, then such a one-time deal is not much of a problem. If they are chronic edit warrers who war frequently, do not heed mediation, and aim at intimidating mediators and other edit warrers, then ArbCom action is appropriate. If they are upset over a certain subject but are fine otherwise, then you could ban or parole them from editing in that area. If they are aggravated by a user, then the two users could be instructed not to communicate with each other. If a user is an absolute problem and cannot be constructive, then a ban may be in order. Basically, if a person is of use in any way, then a sitewide ban should be avoided. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 15:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

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

In a collaborative environment, editors attacking other editors is disruptive and a serious problem. If people who engage in persistent personal attacks cannot be mellowed, then a ban is in order. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 15:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson?

Administrators are, in theory, elected because they are trustworthy members of the community that intend on being good administrators. If they start acting wildly, or if they are showing continuous bad judgment, then desysopping should be considered. If an administrator realizes they're screwing up, then desysopping may not be needed. Adminship suspension would be useful when an admin is normally a good admin, but then something happens and they need to chill out without adminship for a while. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 15:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

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

I've noticed that, especially in the days of CSN (no, not Crosby Stills and Nash), community bans may be subject to things like rushed discussions, a person's enemies populating a discussion, and other such things that make community ban discussions iffy. In any case, the Arbitration Committee could pick up an appeals case if they notice that the community ban discussion that led them there looks questionable. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 19:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

5. Two recent cases, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid and Wikipedia: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?

I'm assuming this question asks about a case in which the ArbCom is deadlocked on a current issue involving user conduct. If the ArbCom can't come to a consensus, it could consider compromise proposals or asking the community what it thinks via a non-binding, informal strawpoll. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 19:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your consideration. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Question from Ragesoss

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?--ragesoss 04:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Scientific point of view would be the consensus and ideas generated from the scientific community, whereas neutral point of view includes the argument from science as well as non-scientific viewpoints, in proportionate weight, of course. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 20:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Questions from Westlakersteam

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

1. In your statement you say: "I want to help this encyclopedia deal with the filth of everyday life". That seems to be a quite negative view of life; please explain what you mean by "filth" and how you could use the position you are applying for to deal with it.

I am not saying that everyday life is filth, but that I want to help it deal with the filth part of everyday life. What is filth? How about edit wars that cannot be resolved simply... people having to put up with personal attacks... the RFAs... as idealist as I sound, I wish as arbitrator to help end these problems, by being an effective arbitrator that seeks to solve problems as reasonably as possible so people can go back to editing the encyclopedia. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 20:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

2. How old are you?Craig Spurrier(Wikinews Steward) said you are 15. Westlakersteam 12:14, 1 November 2007 (UT

I am about 15 years and 8.5 months old. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 20:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Questions from Sean William

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

1. In your opinion, what is the best way to deal with revert-warriors brought before ArbCom?
   1. If they can't approach a specific article or subject without revert warring, and they are otherwise helpful, then they should be restricted from editing said pages (or being restricted from doing multiple reverts). If they're a nuisance in general, then a ban or sitewide parole may be in order. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 20:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
2. What is your opinion about revert parole (1RR limitations, etc.)?
   1. It can help people restrain themselves, because it's either they limit their edit warring or they're banned. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 20:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
3. What is your opinion about civility parole (also known as personal attack parole)?
   1. Unfortunately, they cannot prevent personal attacks from being made (that is, after the parole has been handed out), but at least the reaction to a personal attack being made is a ban. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 20:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Sean William @ 16:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Question from xaosflux

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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 16:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC) (Note:Generic question for all candidates, other candidates are WELCOME to copy this question in to their subpages)Reply
   1. With Oversight and CheckUser access, a user can do really powerful stuff. It's appropriate, then, that handing out access to these privileges is severely restricted. Possible candidates to CheckUser/Oversight access include arbitrators (of course), former arbitrators in good standing, and maybe individual admins chosen by the ArbCom. Of course, since I am a minor, if people are not comfortable with me handing out these access privileges, then I'll abstain from such discussions. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 20:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Questions from CO

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

1. Question one: Is consensus really possible with over 200 people commenting on different processes?

   Answer: Even if it is possible, it would be very difficult to achieve. Which explains why Wikipedia tends to use more supermajority-based decision making than true consensus. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 20:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

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: A governing body sounds redundant... we have the people, we have rules, we have administrators who enforce them and arbitrators to be the final word on where things are disputed. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 20:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Question from Wanderer57

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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 01:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Based on what I seen, it's a lot of people pouring in their complaints about a user, which can be very intimidating. Luckily, there is usually someone around to defend that person, but all in all, RFCs don't really accomplish anything. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 20:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Questions from Daniel

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments1 person in discussion

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?

Logs could be admissable as evidence if they are directly related to Wikipedia, however there must be multiple submissions of logs done by several different people to help prevent manipulated logs from being used as evidence. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 20:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

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?

The Arbitration Committee has jurisdiction over Wikipedia, and the IRC group contacts and the channel operators that cascade thus have jurisdiction over the IRC channels. In my opinion, it is in the interest of the channel operators to remove someone who is causing problems for Wikipedia. While Wikipedia and its IRC channels are different, the IRC channels are nonetheless a supplementary part of Wikipedia and its culture. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 20:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

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?

People won't want that, but it doesn't sound like a terrible idea. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 20:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

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

Logs cannot be published anywhere on the Internet, as that is not allowed. It should be allowed only on the condition that there is an official publication of logs so that there is a version known to be authentic that people can compare the logs they receive on the Internet. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 20:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

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 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes, and do you believe this was the correct decision?

They should only be required to answer to their actions if it is perceived as having an effect on the workings of Wikipedia. It would have been neat to see the ArbCom intervene on that RFA to help lessen the drama, but that's not going to happen (the ArbCom is like honey, and everything honey touches honey sticks, except honey is drama). And while that Everyking desysopping sounded like a good idea, it just gives me this feeling of fear mongering, you know? MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 20:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

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?

OTRS has a good reason for doing what it does, especially in regards with living people, and reversing that is just stupid. The OTRS officer acted appropriately and as such should not be sanctioned. The administrator should be desysopped, since wheel warring would indicate that he or she did know that it's unwise to undo an OTRS officer. The third administrator should not be sanctioned, as he or she would just be trying to restore what should be. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 20:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

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

A wheel war is when administrators go back and forth on an admin action. Delete, undelete, delete, undelete... or how about block, unblock, block, unblock... it can keep going on. It's damaging, it's a load of trouble, and it makes you question how they were elected to begin with if they don't know how to settle such differences without resorting to fighting. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 20:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Question from Addhoc

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Are there any subject areas that you would recuse yourself from? Thanks! Addhoc 14:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would recuse from cases where I am named as an involved party, or where I have established that I could not be an objective arbitrator. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 20:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Question from Ultraexactzz

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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 15:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Understanding. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 20:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Question from Wikidudeman

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

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)Reply

I know that as a mediator, I aim to carry on as few cases at a time so I can dedicate more time to them, but as arbitrator it would be unwise to only pay attention to one case. To help ensure that details don't go to waste I'll read over submitted evidence. proposals, etc. and not simply skim them (my method of reading is thorough and slow -- skimming is my enemy!), meanwhile trying to do as many cases as possible. Maybe I could dedicate one day to a case, then the next to another, etc. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 23:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Question 2 from Wikidudeman

In some arbitrations, editors will introduce numerous irrelevant proposals in an attempt to obfuscate the real purpose or create a fog cloud with unrelated material to misdirect the arbitrators from the intended purpose of the arbitration, generally user conduct. What will you do to prevent arbitrations from getting off track due to editors introduction of irrelevant material in mass which can sometimes cause confusion or the false impression of difficult or complex circumstances for arbitrators. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

When considering proposed findings of facts, principles, and sanctions, I will keep in mind what the request for arbitration is all about, and if I see an irrelevant one, I will call it out. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 01:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Question from Amarkov

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

How much should the Arbitration Committee be accountable to the community? More specifically, under what cases (if any) is it acceptable for the committee to overrule a community decision or isolate discussions from the community at large? -Amarkov moo! 05:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

It would be very hard for the Arbitration Committee to intervene on community matters without the community getting agitated. Yet, the Arbitration Committee will have to upset some people sometimes if it means a stablized community for editing. If the community is interested in something that directly goes against the idea of Wikipedia being an encyclopedia, then the Arbitration Committee should intervene. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 17:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Question from Geogre

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Several times over the past twelve months, ArbCom and the Administrators noticeboards have come face to face with the practice and consequences of "back channel communications" between users (communication by private means or non-Wikipedia means). Do you believe that administrators and users "need" to have private conversations? If they do not need them, do you think that media that cannot be transported over to Wikipedia (IRC, instant messageners) have a proper use? Do you think that media that should not be ported over to Wikipedia (e-mail) because of the expectation of privacy inherent in them have a proper use for non-Arbitration purposes? Geogre 21:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

What private conversations people have is their business, which can be an incredible problem when said conversations have an effect on Wikipedia. At what point does a private conversation turn into something that Wikipedians and the Arbitration Committee are curious about? Private conversations wrt Wikipedia are only really needed when it has to do with a private matter, and such private conversations should be noted somewhere on Wikipedia (a la the latest Nathanrdotcom arbitration). Consensus achieved in a private conversation is not actionable, and as for what level of privacy should be expected when a private conversation leads to action on Wikipedia which then leads to arbitration can be summed up as this: what happens in privacy is private, and when it becomes a Wikipedia matter, it's Wikipedia's business. That doesn't mean private conversation logs should be released into the public, but perhaps the ArbCom can take a look-see, only if necessary. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 22:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Questions from jd2718

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I was concerned about your candidacy last year not so much because of your inexperience (though that was an issue) as because of your youth. How do we know that today's commitment will be there in a year? in two? in three? And attitudes change - but they change more quickly and more often in younger people. If we vote for you today, ... 2 years on ... You get my point. I want to give you a chance to address these concerns, and possibly assuage them. Jd2718 03:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

If it's of any help, I have been active on Wikipedia since May 2005 (having registered my account six months earlier), and I haven't not edited Wikipedia for at most four days. At this rate, my commitment should not change. Furthermore, while my personality has definitely changed in the past nearly-three years since I registered, it has mostly been for the better. Even if problematic personality issues arise, I frequently hesitate when it comes to doing something bad on Wikipedia (and then I end up not doing so). My mental health is in good condition and I know when I am in the wrong mood to do something like arbitration (in which case I'll wait until I have cooled off). MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 16:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

It does help, thank you. jd2718 18:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Question from Neil

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I am concerned your age could give the wrong message to members of the community, and outside Wikipedia ("one of Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee is only 15 years old!"). A professional and mature reputation is vital to ensure the ArbCom are respected and trusted. Do you think this could pose a problem? How would you respond? Neil ☎ 13:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia's reputation has already been tarnished by the fact that a plurality of Wikipedians are teenagers who focus entirely on popular culture. I have always considered myself mentally to be older than I actually am, and apparently so have other people. Don't consider me to be a teenager, but an experienced Wikipedia mediator. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 16:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Neil ☎ 12:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Question from Cla68

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You appear to have been a contributor to the project for some time and have greatly helped in many areas. Have you helped edit any articles or other content that have reached Featured or Good Article status? Cla68 21:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

My two good articles are Guarana and Acamprosate. Theobromine was a good article, but after it was promoted everyone disagreed about it being a good article and so it was delisted. I do not have any featured articles. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 22:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Questions from WJBscribe

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

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.

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?
   1. Three years is a long term; it's roughly how long I've been on Wikipedia and it's safe to say that almost nothing is the same, in both a good and bad way. Being able to recall arbitrators would be a decent idea; however, I am weary about introducing a new process or a new bureaucracy, since it's likely to be bothersome. In the meantime, users could file requests for arbitration against arbitrators, moving that they are removed from the committee. It would be pretty hard to improve on this design for arbitrator recalls without making it worse. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 23:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
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?
   1. It may be too much trouble to force people to give up CheckUser or Oversight status for inactivity, though it's probably a good idea to encourage those who are inactive, or are about to become inactive, to relinquish access to CheckUser and Oversight privileges. This is mainly for security reasons. (We all saw what happened with the hijacked admin accounts. Imagine that with CheckUser). MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 23:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
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?
   1. What's neat about arbitration in the real world is its ability to hand down its own solution to a problem as a means of solving the problem. That should not necessarily be carried onto Wikipedia, but if needed, the Arbitration Committee should be able to assist the community in clarifying policy. Of course, like all other things ArbCom, this should be a last resort. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 23:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your time and good luck. WjBscribe 23:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Question from Revolving Bugbear

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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 16:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to the jurisdictaparadox of the Internet. I am not a lawyer, but if I am not mistaken, when you access a server in a country, you must abide by that server's country's laws. The English Wikipedia is hosted entirely in the city of Tampa, Florida, and so what happens on English Wikipedia must abide by Floridian and US law, including relevant privacy and copyright laws. It's up to individual users to follow their local laws for what they are allowed to access. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 21:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

More questions from jd2718

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

You patiently answering my first question. When I posted it I did not intend to ask more, but now here I am.

1. In what way(s) should ArbCom recognize the differences between administrators and non-administrators? Are there different expectations? Should mistakes or bad behavior be viewed differently?
   1. Administrators are not very different from non-administrators, but administrators are arguably selected to be administrators because they are trusted. If administrators breach the trust that the community placed in that person, then they are no longer trustworthy, making desysopping an option. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 21:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
2. Disputes over nationalist conflicts involving multiple editors seem to find their way to ArbCom fairly regularly. Is there something inherent in these articles that leads to a special kind of dispute? Do these topics, articles, or editors need to be treated differently in some way by ArbCom?
   1. The kind of people that edit an article are the kind of people who are interested in that topic. In this case, people interested in an article could be people who sympathize with the topic at hand, and people who are against it. When you throw nationality into this mix, you get very emotional editors who have strong beliefs in the article at hand, definitely because it relates to their real life and possibly because two nations are at war. When two adversaries clash on Wikipedia, it is indisputedly messy. Arbitrators must keep this in mind. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 21:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
3. If you could by fiat change one WP rule, policy, guideline, or practice, what would you choose? Why?
   1. I would shut down Requests for Adminship -- a cesspool of drama and voting that achieves nothing for the encyclopedia. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 21:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
4. Can you point to a dispute (could have been at ArbCom or Mediation, or even on a talk page) that you've gone into (as an involved party or 3rd party) with a strong opinion, but had that opinion change in the course of discussion?
   1. Not that I can recall, sorry. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 21:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
5. Do you feel that this method of selecting arbitrators is effective? productive? Should it be maintained for next year? Can it be tweaked in some way to get arbitrators who participate more consistently? Or is there an alternate selection method that would have that effect?
   1. It's okay. I like how there's a long interrogation period which weeds out the people who aren't really committed, and then that's followed up with the voting. It's also neat how technically Jimbo appoints everyone technically if they achieve 50% or higher; while this doesn't seem ideal, it eliminates the percentage mess of RFA. Maybe after an arbitrator has been serving for a year, they could be confirmed for the rest of their term, making the first year a probation period so-to-speak. The point of this is to endorse people who seem to be participating and to kick out the inactive people and/or the jerks. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 21:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Jd2718 17:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Question from Jossi

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What is your opinion on the use of multiple accounts in Wikipedia, as it relates to the recent discussions on the subject? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

It looks like a good idea, since it allows people to maintain separate identities (in case they want to edit more embarrassing articles) while maintaining legitimacy. If approved-unassociated sockpuppets are used maliciously, we could always ban both the sockpuppets and the puppetmasters, and if the whole system fails we could always shut it down. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 21:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Questions from Piotrus

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

1. Do you think an arbitrator should be active in all cases he has no conflict or interests in?
   1. An arbitrator should only take cases that he or she has the time for. I would rather see an arbitrator be strictly dedicated to one case than an arbitrator focusing on all the cases and doing a terrible job at it. However, arbitrators should aim to at least take a look at all of the cases they are allowed to be involved in. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 20:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
2. If the arbitrator is active, should he be expected to comment in workshop / arbcom discussion pages?
   1. Yes. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 20:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
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?
   1. If an experienced editor is being incivil, then there's a chance they know they shouldn't be; that would indicate an infraction of trust. A newcomer being incivil could be incivil because he or she does not know better. Yet by the time both persons come to arbitration, they should be aware of what is going on at Wikipedia (as the road to arbitration is lengthy). Either way, depending on the editor, the outcome of such a case should depend on what needs to be done to whip them into shape (or kick them out, if that is the case). MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 20:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
4. How can WP:CIV and similar issues be enforced? Should they be enforced as efficient as 3RR?
   1. When editing Wikipedia, you are interacting in a social environment, and so civility is a must. If a person is being incivil, a person should tell them, very politely, to shape up their attitude, as this is, as I said, a collaborative environment. YOU MUST BE VERY CAREFUL WHEN DOING THIS, OR ELSE YOU MAY GET A NEGATIVE REACTION OUT OF THE PERSON. If they don't stop acting incivilly following repeated requests to improve, arbitration may happen. The Arbitration Committee's job then is to convince the user to behave civilly, or to ban them. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 20:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Points of View: When does including "notable" points of view become problematic for NPOV?

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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 18:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia must stay out of the political debate and remain a neutral power. Almost never does an issue have only two sides. I have no respect for editors who try to turn articles into political debates. This is not a positive development; we must stick to neutral point of view and proportional weight for viewpoints. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 19:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Reply