User:Moreschi/Statement
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I suspect for many I’m something of a controversial figure, and that’s probably for good reason. Certainly no stranger to the arbitration process, I was heavily involved in all three of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jean-Thierry Boisseau, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bharatveer, walking away from all three with good results – whether with stains on my character is for you to decide.
I’ve been at Wikipedia for a while now – since March 2006 – and I’ve put a lot of hard work in, both as ordinary editor and as all-singing, all-dancing, all-cluebatting, all-trollwhacking admin. As a result, I do genuinely care what happens to Wikipedia. If it goes down the drain, a lot of my best work will have been completely wasted.
As you can see from my userpage and User:Moreschi/The Plague, I’m not terribly optimistic about Wikipedia at the moment, but I do think my concerns can be addressed (see “The Cure” section of “The Plague”), and Wikipedia improved, with proactive leadership from the top. This is what I aim to provide.
Oddly enough, I actually think the current arbitration committee have done a good job; they have started several positive trends that I would aim to continue, most importantly applying sweeping remedies to areas of the encyclopedia that have proved particularly troublesome. The problem is that they’ve been slower than goddamned amorous turtles while doing so: too many wounds have festered while the ArbCom dithers and Rome burns. I’m a reasonably young chap with lots of energy and plenty of time, so I feel that I’ve got the space in my life to deal with ArbCom work alongside the effort I put in for Veropedia – that is, improving the encyclopedia.
Looking at User:Moreschi/The Plague/Useful links gives you some idea of the scale of nationalist conflict across Wikipedia, and how much of this rises to the level of arbitration. Another area that causes just as many problems is pseudoscience. I’ve been especially active in dealing with both problem areas; Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard was my own invention, as the White Knight might say, and I’ve poured hours into dealing with the fallout from the Armenia-Azeri wars, trying to restore discipline to this area of the encyclopedia. The Bharatveer case was the end result of time spent trying to deal with “Hindutva” Indian nationalism, also a major problem, at Out of India theory and other places. As you can see, my major focus throughout my time at Wikipedia has been actual content (and after all, most arbitration cases are based on content-related disputes), and I consider preventing disruption far more important than sticking rigidly to the rules. This brings us nicely onto something else I want to talk about.
For a while I have felt that the arbitration committee operates as too much of a “closed shop”. Understandable, since they deal with many privacy issues. Yet that which does not relate to privacy, I would like to bring out more into the public domain. Let us say we have an arbitration case relating to a dispute based on Azeri history of the 15th century, an area about which I know sweet FA. I am only competent to look at user conduct. How is this adequate? How often has a troll, through persistent addition of rubbish, provoked a good user into losing his cool? Could this be happening here? In such a circumstance I would seek to discuss the content issues with experts, whether they work on Wikipedia or no, so as to get hold of a broad view as to how the real issues pan out in terms of real academic scholarship. It’s basic good admin practice, after all – you see a fight on your patch, you’re not quite sure, what’s going on, so you ask someone uninvolved who does. Why can’t we apply this to arbitration? Despite the fact that, yes, arbitrators cannot rule on content, most arbitration cases relate to content-based issues – and a competent arbitrator must, as I see it, familiarize himself with those issues. You’ll have to forgive my bias in favour of actual articles, but, as I’ve said, it’s articles that most ArbCom cases boil down to – and they are the most important part of Wikipedia.
Shall we summarise? What can I bring the table? My plentiful free time, my energy, my ideas (some of them a little radical and eccentric, perhaps), and above all my passionate devotion to quality on Wikipedia are what I offer. I’m not hung up on spurious notions of professionalism; it’s only Wikipedia, after all – I don’t want the job, but what I do want is to protect and develop the encyclopedia; it’s the articles I care about. The good work of quality Wikipedians deserves safeguarding. Fed up the nationalist wars and pseudoscience battles? You're not alone.
I do not want the checkuser and oversight permissions; not interested in oversight, not got the technical ability, not nearly, for checkuser. I freely acknowledge that I can do quite stupid and trollish things now and again – not out of malice, but from folly. Yet is not the wisest he who knows his idiocy? Does the good outweigh the bad? That’s for you, dear reader, to decide. Sorry for taking up so much of your time, assuming you got the end of this. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 21:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
