What's the deal with Kirill? Does he have some sort of involvement here?

He was recused on Mantanmoreland too, right?

Kirill works closely with cla on the mil history articles - or has in the past. I assume that is the reason for his recusal. Pity because he is the best arb there is - fair to the end.

Let me note that this eminently fair arbitrator blocked me for a week last October because I didn't want people deleting the comments of others from my talk page without permission. Maybe he just had some kind of horrible blind spot there, but as my sole interaction with him to date it certainly doesn't give me the impression that he's very fair.

From what I've seen of him, he'd have done the same to anyone. It wasn't really a reasonable thing to do, but you didn't get the block from him because you're not popular enough.

Agreed.

I would like to have a conversation with Kirill. I don't dispute the claim that he is the best remaining arbitrator, but I am still perplexed by what he meant when he voted not to answer the questions I put to ArbCom last December.


Was he referring to my behavior, to the behavior of the adversarial editors with whom I had butted heads, or the behavior of ArbCom itself?

Yours. Obviously.

Does that mean he had determined that I was already at or near best practices?

No, it means he thinks you are incorrigible.

And you knew that.

Moulton, to the best of my understanding, the block is intended to stand until and unless you indicate a willingness to contribute to Wikipedia in a constructive manner.

If you are unwilling to do so, there's no point in unblocking your account, other than as a gesture of goodwill.

To me, that would be sufficient reason to unblock your account, but there are some loud voices who disagree.

Hrmmm...

Does that put me in the same league as the incorrigible Dr. Berlinski?

I should add that being "fairest member of the arbcom" is like being "least bellicose member of the Bush administration."

Neil, do you believe my contributions were unconstructive?

It is interesting to note that some people are tolerated on Wikipedia who do not contribute positively, but wander around in the political arena. One starting point would be to recognise that either:

a ) anyone who wants to have a say in the politics of Wikipedia must continually earn that right by working effectively and positively in article space
or
b ) recognise that WP needs a mix of skills, governance being one of them, and therefore there is no absolute qualification that one needs to contribute articles to make a positive contribution.

It seems to me that WP is operating under version ( b ).

Moulton came across a hideous demonstration of corrupt practices - a group riding roughshod over the rules and other editors. He saw the problem and determined that it was appropriate to understand and solve the reasons why this occurred.

Moulton has, apparently, little interest in editing articles significantly.

What he does have is an interest in constructively contributing to Wikipedia by investigating and improving policies so that it might operate more effectively. So from that definition, he has already indicated a willingness to contribute.

Getting down to brass tacks: the problem is NOT Moulton, the problem is the abusive behaviour of the ID gang. Until Wikipedians stop pussyfooting around and openly recognise that, they will not move towards being able to form a common sense view on what to do with Moulton.

I would quite happily support a ban on Moulton on the grounds that if could be proven he was just there to disrupt Wikipedia. If you subscribe to the ID Crowd POV, that is a done deal. However, for rational people, there is no evidence. Being tedious and repetitive in the face of hostility and deception is hardly a banning offence.

In a more wholesome environment, Moulton might be able to communicate effectively and give guidance on issues of governance. It also seems quite possible that he could be so boringly tedious and disruptive that he would deserve exclusion for that. At the moment, nobody can know the answer to that question because abusive editing, an RFC and a banning decision all conducted and manipulated by a group of what appears to be less than a dozen people. A group of people who are able to continue that disruption through the use of a populist standpoint, the pretence that this abusive behaviour is outweighed by their WikiDefender-like skills in the defence of the realm, and their use of fear and intimidation tactics which have even extended from the game into real world abuses.

Until the ID Crowd have been dealt with, there is little point moving on to rational discussions of "What to do with Moulton?"

While I do not believe your contributions were unconstructive, I'm equally unsure they were constructive. Is it possible to be neither constructive or unconstructive? And I don't mean flitting around making comments that affect nothing and effect no change (there are many here who do fill that criteria). More that your purposes and intents seem to me tangential to the purposes and intents of Wikipedia.

One of the few positive outcomes results of your experience, Moulton, is that the Picard article is much improved. It's still not ideal, but is not anywhere near as bad as it was. I don't know if that would have happened if it had not received the attention it did.

Good point. And let's not forget that whenever we (or perhaps more accurately, I) point out "the fairest member of ArbCom", we're usually sorely disappointed by them later. I don't know if I'd describe Kirill as the "fairest member" (sounds like it has sexual connotations ), but I would say that of the remaining members, he probably has the most integrity. Recall the now infamous Mantanmoreland case. Morven disliked Wordbomb strongly, which was clear to anyone following the case. Morven steadfastly refused to recuse, if only to put an end to any appearance of impropriety. The same goes for FloNight in the Mantanmoreland case, to a lesser extent. Mind you, both of them could have still had a say in how the case progressed via back channels and the private arbcom mailing list, but both of them got off on giving everyone the big "fuck you" and voted on the case anyway.

I would not say someone like Morven is a bad arb and Kirill is a good arb; but I would say Kirill has more integrity than Morven, though.

I appreciate your perspective. That is most helpful to me.

I have no difficulty admitting that my efforts were largely ineffective, but it's not for lack of trying, in good faith, to correct what I saw as appalling treatment of two or three BLP subjects who were in the sights of the WikiClique on Intelligent Design.


Yes, it's been an arduous journey to bring that one lone BLP up to a level that is merely objectionable rather than appalling.

That would depend on how a person reacts to purely observational comments, IMO...

I mean, as far as WR is concerned, most of what Moulton would like to "constructively" see happen on Wikipedia is contained in various posts on his blog, or on musenet, which he links to fairly often. If you read some of that material, you'll probably come away thinking that a large portion of it is gobbledygook, but there are actually some decent ideas for reworking dispute-resolution systems in large online communities in there... Personally, I think the "social contract" stuff is rather pie-in-the-sky, particularly for Wikipedia, which is so full of narcissists it literally makes my head spin. But that's just me...

The anti-ID people on Wikipedia wouldn't see the "NPOV-ification" of the various BLP articles they own as "constructive" in any case. Nor would they publicly admit that it was "NPOV-ification," of course... So far, they've shown they have enough intimidation power to keep that particular status quo in place. And I can just about guarantee that they'll go back and trash the Rosalind Picard article too, once they've gotten a sufficient number of opposing editors banned.

In other words, Kirill, watch your back, Daniel Brandt, ColScott, et al. are likely to be gunning for you next....

What could they reveal about him that isn't already on his userpage?

If Kirill's one of the better arbs, that's a hell of a condemnation of the rest of them.

Well, you and Linda Blair.

Somey is our resident SpinMeister.

My simile would be that of of Garrison Keillor: it's more like being "tallest radio show comedian". Since Arbcom really isn't about fairness anyway (but rather about preservation and use of power), so what if somebody on it happens to be fair? They might also have a mole on their cheek.