Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for Blnguyen

Three questions from Carcharoth
Thanks for running in the election. Hope these questions are an easy way to start.

These are copies of questions initially asked by John Reid.

1. Who are you? 2. Are you 13? Are you 18? 3. Should ArbCom arbitrate policy disputes or any other matter outside user conduct issues? Why or why not?
 * I am myself, editing under my real name. I am from Australia, and study theoretical physics, as indicated (vaguely) on my userpage. I guess my userpage shows that this because I have edited many Australian articles, and some mathematics and physics pages as well. I guess that my wikipedia edits show people who I am with regards to Wikipedia. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am above both. I am in the normal age range for a graduate student who goes straight through school. This puts me in my early twenties.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've answered this below in AnonEMouse's section. The arbcom should not legislate, but it implicitly endorses whether a "policy" actually enjoys consensus to be a policy as arbitration rulings are based on violations of such policy. Hence, a non-arbitration or non-remedy based on activity relating to a "policy" will tell use whether it is indeed policy or not. I am not in favour of the arbcom directly ruling on content at the moment, as it is not what the community currently wants of the arbcom. Having said that, arbcom would need to indirectly comment on content as it does anyway, by looking at content battles to determine who is pushing POV, presenting extremists sources as mainstream, etc. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Anomo
1. Do you think there should be an age requirement for ArbCom? Anomo 11:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not think so, unless there are any legal imperatives which make this necessary, which is not the case here at present. If any issues arise which change this, then Wikimedia's legal advisor Brad Patrick will keep the community informed. So legal issues not being in the frame, the candidates should be selected by the community based on their demonstration via their edits in Wikipedia of the skills, wisdom and maturity required to make the most effective decisions in the best interests of the project. Needless to say, correlation between age and appropriateness is not 1. Also, if age and other things external to Wikipedia editing were an official factor under some policy, it could be unenforcable to see if the user was telling the truth about their age, or whether they were a university professor, etc. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

2. I have read on several websites (they even gave links to block logs) of Wikipedia admins who do things like indefinitely blocking accounts who have not edited for months, there was no CheckUser anything, no reports, and the admin didn't give any reason, just put personal attacks as the block reason (e.g. saying "troll"). Basically such cases seem done beyond punative, but just out of bullying. I saw at least ten of these, but so far I can only find one here. I don't feel like digging for hours, as I just want to ask your opinion of whether you support or oppose such admin activity because it's clear most support it. Anomo 11:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't feel that such kind of administrator activity is widely accepted culture. In this case it appears that the account was primarily used to accuse other users of stalking and implying that some were mass murderers, and an administrator put in place an indefinite block with a time delay. If the user left a long time ago, then it isn't really necessary as the user is likely to have abandoned the account, or can be blocked if they return and disrupt the progress of the encyclopedia. I don't do so as it is redundant. In the case of any block, a clear reason or link to a reason should be used.Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 06:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

3. What is your view on the current policy often called "kicking them while they're down" of deleting the user and talk pages of people who are blocked? Anomo 11:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't believe this is the case - These deletions are not the norm at all, nor does there seem to be a policy stating this. If you are talking about normal blocks, with finite durations, then this does not happen at all (or to any visible extent). As far as indefinite blocks go, the overwhelming majority of the probably multiple hundreds of indefinite blocks that are enacted on a daily basis are throwaway vandal accounts and do not have a userpage, unless the blocking admin puts the tag up specifying an indefinitely blocked user. Eventually, these are deleted after a few months and there is no issue. If other users are banned, then it is customary to post the relevant template on the userpage and the old userpage with the biographical information and the ir previous talk page dialog will be kept for historical records should anybody want to read it. It's only in the case of a person using their userpage for the sole purpose of polemical commentary, free webhosting or to put divisive and hostile content, that the page is sent to MfD or speedy deleted where relevant. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

4. What is your view on the practice on Wikipedia where a person blanks out text on talk pages because the text mentioned something wrong the person did or defeated them in an argument? The text blanked usually has no reason given. When there is a reason given, it's only a fake reason. In rare cases, the text is not blanked, but the entire talk page is archived including discussions hours old, blanking it out. Anomo 11:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, generally, I prefer not to go and censor comments (aside from vandalism), but there have been rare situations where I have removed commentary which is not related to me. This occurs in some areas, usually talk pages of political/ethnic/religious topics are sometimes used to simply airing ideological views even after the notaforum has been posted. Also, in some spiteful battles, users will go to article talk pages frequented by their opponents and post their block log or dirt files, using the talk page as a billboard for off-topic harassment. In these cases, an uninvolved party will notice and remove the material if necessary. As far as content debate goes, I am not in favour of deleting comments by one user pointing out that another user is "wrong", as I feel the reader can work it out for themselves. On more practical grounds, a user is free to remove things from their user talk page, but I don't do this - if I receive a post which is abusive, someone else will agree and roll back the post. Sometimes I have received obscene comments or had a swastika posted to my talk page while I was online, so I just leave it there before someone else reverts it. If nobody agrees, then I regard it as an acceptable post. If you look in my archives, there are plenty of accusations, usually accusations of bigotry etc, which I feel to be completely unmerited left on my talk page, so I just leave a comment explaining my position and why they are baseless. If some guy just asks the same question ten times then I just put "see above" or something. I feel that although people can delete critical or embarrassing messages, this is in my opinion counterproductive to the given user because people would notice the inappropriate edit summaries such as "rv troll" etc, and form a negative impression of the deletor, eg, it gives the impression that they may be autocratic or perhaps "can dish it out but can't take it". Obviously, if I were examining evidence, I would look into the history of the page. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

5. What is your view on the frequent practice of locking the talk page of someone who is banned to avoid communication with them? Anomo 11:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, a person is banned either by a community ban or an arbcom ruling, and by default, the relevant documentation is posted to their talk page but the page is not locked by default. So the page is left there in case the party may have something relevant or useful to say. If they use it to launch polemical attacks, then the page will be locked due to disruption. Since a ban means that the user is not welcome to edit Wikipedia, should they use the privilege of a talk page to further disrupt the progress of the encyclopedia, usually the root cause of their ban, then it is appropriate to lock the page. The user still has the email options, and other off-wiki methods to raise relevant concerns if their talk page is locked, legitimately or otherwise. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

6. Why is it that in the past when in a conflict in ArbCom between non-admins and administrators that ArbCom has usually sided with the admins? Anomo 18:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, in order to become an administrator, one has to pass through an RfA, which generally requires the user to satisfy the civility, and NPOV policy in their activities to the the satisfaction of the community. The behavioural standards expected in an RfA usually means that a successful candidate is rarely incivil or engages in personal attacks, and generally does not edit-war, at least not to the stage of a block, and is not a POV pusher. All of the these expectations are much higher than the level that it takes to be formally sanctioned by the arbcom – so if a person is behaving in the way that they did prior to becoming an admin, they will have nothing to worry about as far as arbitration, as there have been very rampages by admins post-RfA. In most arbitration cases, we often see that a user with very strong ideological opinions comes to wikipedia, and often only edits in one particular subject, and sometimes only a very small facet of these articles – notably on religion or nationalist related topics. Such types of editors often have a difficult time in RfA even if they do nothing wrong, because a narrow scope of editing is frowned upon. In any case, those who get into trouble are most frequently cited for having a strong POV agenda, and often do not maintain appropriate decorum during debate (eg, Jason Gastrich, DarrenRay, His excellency, Kosovo arbitration cases), which would never allow them to pass an RfA. For the small number of administrators whose behaviour deteriorates to sub-par with respect to RfA standards after their appointment, or to the level of the cases above, they are usually sanctioned by arbcom – see Karmafist and Freestylefrappe, for instance.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Question from Ragesoss
In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?
 * I don't think it would make a large difference is how the majority of topics work. NPOV dictates that as Wikipedia is not a primary source of information, and therefore it will cover all significant majority and minority views on the given topic, in proportion to their due weight. In those areas where SPOV could be used effectively, then it is likely that viewpoints which are generally more popular amongst the scientific community via journal publications as a result of experiments, etc, using the scientific method, and so there is no problem. In other cases, SPOV is not really relevant, such as in writing about some TV show or artwork, and in cases such as religious views about what happens after death, etc, do not fall under things which can be examined by a scientific method, so SPOV is not applicable unless we reduce the content of the article to "this is unverifiable". In cases where there is a large conflict, such as evolution, intelligent design and creationism, there is enough there to show all sides of the debate and the controversies and rebuttals etc in detail, though in such cases, non-scientific theories are classified as such, and people can make up their own minds about the various competing theories. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Mailer Diablo
1. Express in a short paragraph, using any particular issue/incident that you feel strongly about (or lack thereof) in the past, on why editors must understand the importance of the ArbCom elections and making wise, informed decisions when they vote.
 * Well, there is a certain idea in some sections of the community that ArbCom, due to the fact that it deals with serious disputes which otherwise appear intractable, that the ArbCom is only relevant for troublemakers and disruptive editors. Thus, some people will think that because they are not causing trouble and because everything seems like smooth sailing for them, that arbcom is only for politics and troublemakers. However, any user can easily get involved in an arbitration case merely by editing in very quiet areas in a proper manner, if a user comes into that area of editing and behaves disruptively and hindering progress on the encyclopedia. At that point, their future and peaceful and happy editing will depend on the action of the arbcom - this could mean that some future arbitrators could be either slow or fast in their processing, which impacts on how long the user will have to wait before the disruption to their editing is ended, or whether the case is accepted at all or what kind of remedies are passed - which may mean the behvaiour continuing or stopped. Apathy would generally, in my opinion, lead to a poorer result for all as it diminishes the result and the level of expectation placed on the performance of the arbitration committee, leading to a poorer working environment. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

2. Imagine. Say Jimbo grants you the authority to make, or abolish one policy with immediate and permanent effect, assuming no other limitations, no questions asked. What would that be?
 * I would not, especially as you have asked what changes would I make that would become permanent and thus irreversible for the history of Wikipedia's future existence. This would be a very bad idea to assume that Wikipedia will only face some kind of static issues/problems in the past, and would only be useful if the permanent policy changes cover something that we assume would be a constant static issue for Wikipedia, and I think this would be a wrong mentality to forwarding the encyclopedia. I don't think that absolute power would be a good thing either, even though in this case it only exists for the instance of this one decision. Needless to say, there are some things I would like to be changed, but I would not do so unilaterally. If there is any legal imperative for a sudden change, then the WMF legal advice will have the say, but again, the law may change, so permanently sealed policies are to be avoided. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

3. It is expected that some successful candidates will receive checkuser and oversight privileges. Have you read and understood foundation policies regulating these privileges, and able to help out fellow Wikipedians on avenues (e.g. WP:RFCU) in a timely manner should you be granted either or both of them?
 * Yes, on both issues, if it is the community will to give them to me. Looking at the list of checkusers, not all arbitrators have them, and I won't be too worried if I do not. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

4. What is integrity, accountability and transparency to you on the ArbCom?
 * Integrity means that the arbitrators must act fairly and in the best interests of the project - they should recuse in the event of conflict of interest. This means being consistent in decisions to objective decisions, regardless of personal issues. Arbitration must not be about personality, it is about actions as manifested in the edits which are logged. This means that decisions are made on the benefit it brings to the encyclopedia.
 * Accountability implies that the arbitrators must act in the best interests of the encyclopedia, and failing to do so, then there must be remedies for an arbitrator so that they are not above the law. This means, that arbitrators must be sanctioned as would any other user when they behave contrary to what is expected. In cases where something serious occurred, then the arbitrator would hopefully resign, but if not, they may have to be removed.
 * Transparency means that the arbitrators should explain their decisions so that the commmunity can see the reasoning behind it, and how they are consistent and fair to all parties. This is required so that the decisions can be seen to have an objective basis for them, so that it can be seen to be in the best interests of the encyclopedia (at least in the reasoning of the arbcom). If this does not occur, then some people will just assume that the decision was made because of favouritism or bias, deliberately or otherwise. Although this will not lead to universal approval of the decision, it will make for a more contented community with higher morale and productivity, as the community deserves consistent treatment so that they can feel assured that good behaviour and good faith activity will allow them to edit in a secure state of mind, and not feel that they could be purged, etc. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

5. Humour, a tradition of Wikipedian culture, has seen through several controversies in recent history. This is including but not limited to bad jokes and other deleted nonsense, parody policies/essays, April Fools' Day, whole userpages, userboxes... Do you think that they are all just harmless fun, or that they are all nonsense that must go?
 * Certainly, I guess I do indulge in a bit of self-deprecating humour with the monkey photos on my userpage and I certainly don't mind that stuff at all. At least there is some kind of caricature to visualise my operations. It helps people to cool down and relax when they may have tightened up a little to have a joke or reminisce about some gaffe which happened in the past. Having said that one has to be careful not to use humour which could be offensive in some ways, such as religion or ethnicity. Parody and satire is sometimes a useful way of conveying criticism, but due care has to be taken obviously. Aside from that, I'm not in favour of prankery by vandalising articles and userpages, or unlocking the main pages or templates like DYK. If the type of humour can offend people, it detracts from morale and should not be exercised, and if it leads to embarrassment for the project, like vandalising the main page and being reported in the media, then it should go. Aside from that, if it does no harm, then there is not a problem. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions from AnonEMouse
Warning: Most of these are intended to be tough. Answering them properly will be hard. I don't expect anyone to actually withdraw themselves from nomination rather than answer these, but I do expect at least some to seriously think about it!

The one consolation is that your competitors for the positions will be asked them too. Notice that there are about one thousand admins, and about a dozen arbcom members, so the process to become an arbcom member may be expected to be one hundred times harder. (Bonus question - do you think I hit that difficulty standard?) :-)

AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) A current Arbcom case, Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy is concerned with the decision of whether or not a proposed policy has consensus or not, and therefore whether or not it should be a policy/guideline. Whether or not the Arbcom has or should have the power of making this decision is  hotly disputed. Does Arbcom have this power? Should it have this power? Why or why not?
 * 2) * I think it does have this power, or at least does so implicitly because the Arbitration cases are determined with respect to the policies of Wikipedia and thus by its decisions and remedies one can see that it does. By using some reason to cite misconduct by an arbitration party, and then produce a remedy for this, then it has ruled that the policy is valid (unless it is claiming that they are doing whatever they like, which is not the job of the arbcom). Of course, this will become an issue if the the arbcom cites a new policy to point out misconduct by a party in an arbitration case, or conversely if a party requests arbitration and lodges evidence which means that another party has contravened a policy which is in dispute. Thus, a non-arbitration upon a conduct complaint based on the new "policy", or a non-remedy to a relevant aspect of the case under the new "policy" implies that the arbcom believes that the policy is invalid. Certainly I feel that the arbcom should not legislate and make new policy, as it is in the best interests of the community if a wide set of experiences can be pooled in making a new policy to make it most effective to our goals. However in the previous sense, I cannot see how the arbcom can divorce itself from legitimising or illegitimatising a policy when it decides to arbitrate or not arbitrate or issue remedies or not issue remedies, as this their decisions would imply whether the policy is in existence.
 * 3) Similarly, a recently closed Arbcom case Requests_for_arbitration/Giano barely dodged the possibly similar issue of whether the Arbcom can, or should, determine whether Bureaucrats properly made someone an administrator. (Discussed, for example, here). The current arbcom dodged the question (didn't reach agreement one way or the other, and ended up leaving it alone by omission), but you don't get to. :-) Does the arbcom have this power? Should it?
 * 4) * Well, it didn't dodge the question, because the finding of fact #4 says that the Carnildo_3 RfA did not achieve consensus. In this case, the arbcom is of the view that the promotion was an improper act. The arbcom is charged with resolving disputes that the Wikipedia community cannot solve. In this case, it revolves around whether a bureaucrat has misused their tools, in this case the promote button, and whether the bureaucrat has inappropriately made somebody an administrator. This would mean that the arbcom examine whether a bureaucrat carried out a promotion against consensus. This is necessary, as otherwise bureaucrats would be above scrutiny, unless either Jimbo or the WMF board allow themselves alone to keep bureaucrats accountable. As a bureaucrat is a responsibility given to those who are determined to be skilled at analysing consensus, they should be accountable to whether the performance is satisfactory, and as a community appointee, they are expected to abide by its consensus on RfAs and the policy surrounding them.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5)  Various arbcom decisions (can't find a link right now - bonus points for finding a link to an arbcom decision saying this!) have taken into account a user's service to the Wikipedia. Several times they have written that an otherwise good user that has a rare instance of misbehaviour can be treated differently than a user whose similar misbehaviour is their main or sole contribution to the Wikipedia. Do you agree or not, and why?
 * 6) * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia here and the decisions should be made to maximise its productivity. The arbitration committee is not a court of law to punish people who have broken it, it is a panel which passes resolutions when something is deadlocked to further the progress of the encyclopedia. To that end, remedies such as bans, blocks and paroles are used, if given the past history and record of the parties, it is likely that in future they will have a net negative effect on the encyclopedia, as blocks are to prevent bad action. There is no need, except in extreme cases, where someone needs to be restrained from editing because of an isolated incident, because it is likely that it will not be repeated in the future, so any block for prevention of an unlikely incident will only prevent positive contributions. While it can be seen through the prism of pitting users against one another, it should not, as a user, via misconduct damages the wikipedia directly (eg, vandalism) or indirectly by damaging the productivity of another editor to improve Wikipedia. As such, it should not be seen as a privilege or honour system at all - it simply uses an editor's history to forecast whether they are going to make an overall benefit to the encyclopedia, and if there are areas where they have a negative impact, then those will be curtailed, and if there are only negative facets, then a blanket block or ban would be necessary. So, it is not a matter of comparing users to one another, but to decide if the user is benefitting Wikipedia, and in which areas. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) If you agree with the above point, which service to the encyclopedia is more valuable - administration, or writing very good articles? For example, what happens when two editors, an administrator and a good article writer, come into conflict and/or commit a similar infraction - how should they be treated? Note that there are relatively the same number of current administrators and featured articles on the Wikipedia - about 1000 - however, while relatively few administrators have been de-adminned, many former featured articles have been de-featured, so there have been noticeably more featured articles written than administrators made. This is a really tough one to answer without offending at least one important group of people, and I will understand if you weasel your way out of answering it, but it was one of the issues brought up in the recent Requests_for_arbitration/Giano, so you can imagine it may come up again.
 * 8) * In my opinion, it is not an issue of who does more important work, and I do not think that it is the job of the arbcom to create a hall of fame or ranking system, as this would only create bad blood amongst Wikipedians. Everybody has different strengths and interests and they should contribute in that way whilst appreciating the volunteer efforts of other users. Without writing there is no encyclopedia, and without janitorial activity, there will be gigabytes of cruft and junk all over the place (see NP). I've tried my hand at many types of activities, and although I encourage all wikipedians to try to improve their all-round capabilities, there is no doubt that everybody has different strengths and weaknesses. Anybody who makes a net positive contribution to Wikipedia can expect better treatment than someone who comes here to disrupt or use Wikipedia to propound their ideologies. If two good users of any type or the same type start wrangling, then they can only detract from each others' good work in their respective chosen field, so everybody will be treated similarly for disrupting one another's (positive) productivity (given that both are equally responsible for the problem, obviously). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) While some Arbcom decisions pass unanimously, many pass with some disagreement. I don't know of any Arbcom member who hasn't been in the minority on some decisions. Find an Arbcom decision that passed, was actually made that you disagree with. Link to it, then explain why you disagree. (If you don't have time or inclination to do the research to find one - are you sure you will have time or inclination to do the research when elected? If you can't find any passed decisions you disagree with, realize you are leaving yourself open to accusations of running as a rubber stamp candidate, one who doesn't have any opinions that might disagree with anyone.)
 * 10) * I think the Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox has a few aspects that I disagree with. Firstly User:Jim62sch was named not named as a party, yet was later cautioned by the arbitration committee for his taunts, especially when he was not notified of the proposed findings of facts or remedies prior to this . I also feel that the limit of a block to one week to be rather generous, given the user's past history, allowing the possibility of further disruption. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) It has been noted that the diligent User:Fred Bauder writes most of the initial Arbcom decisions -- especially principles, and findings of fact, but even a fair number of the remedies. (Then a fair number get opposed, and refined or don't pass, but he does do most of the initial work.) Do you believe this is: right; neither right nor wrong but acceptable; or wrong? When you get elected, what do you plan to do about it?
 * 12) * At the moment, I feel that because Fred is doing the the majority of the work, that others should also try and pitch in, because the analysis phase is the part which slows down the operation of the arbitration committee the most. As such, I do intend to help in the analysis and formulation process and writing up the findings, as this is the where arbcom needs to speed up and break the deadlock more quickly so that human resources are allocated to an efficient manner of editing. As far as any ideological concern that Fred is doing the bulk of the work, I don't think there is any philosophical problem, but in terms of getting things rolling, there definitely needs to be more help. As far as the remedies go, I don't think there is a major problem that some of the motions are dropped, because we want to get the best possible result. To assume that floating ideas and withdrawing them is bad, because it would limit discussion and analysis of the decision, leading to a less optimal outcome for the encyclopedia. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) For those who are administrators only - how do you feel about non-administrators on the arbcom? Note that while "sure, let them on if they get elected" is an easy answer, there are issues with not having the ability to view deleted articles, and either not earning the community trust enough to become an admin, or not wanting the commensurate duties. Or do you believe that non-administrators are a group that need representation on the arbcom?
 * 14) * I have no problem with a non-administrator being on the arbitration committee. The selection process puts them under scrutiny along with all candidates to see whether they have the analytical skill, judgement and objectivity as exhibited by their edit log to make the best judgments for the further success of the encyclopedia. The fact that they are not an admin means that they will not be able to view deleted pages, but this is easily overcome by someone emailing them the past revisions of the pages. Thus, if they have the required judgment they should be selected. Although it is generally acknowledged that the arbcom requires more skill than being an administrator, as demonstrated by the cases and the community approval in arbcom elections compared to RfAs, there is nothing to inherently say that there could be a very skillful non-administrator who would not make a good arbitrator. If they choose to try an RfA and fail, then it is highly unlikely that they would have any chance of winning the arbcom election. Having said that, it is unlikely that someone who is interested in arbitration would not think of becoming an administrator. I do not believe that we should have any quotas for whatever factions that may be formulated, artificially or otherwise, as it would simply imply that the groups should be protected from one another as though wikipedia is a battlefield, which is not what we aspire to. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 08:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Badbilltucker
Thank you for volunteering to take on this task, and for putting yourself through having to answer these questions. For what it's worth, these particular questions are going to all the candidates.

1. I've noticed that a total of thriteen people have resigned from the committee, and that there is currently one vacancy open in one of the tranches. Having members of the committee resign sometime during their term could create problems somewhere down the road. What do you think are the odds that you yourself might consider resigning during the course of your term, and what if any circumstances can you envision that might cause you to resign? Also, do you think that possibly negative feelings from others arising as a result of a decision you made could ever be likely to be cause for your own resignation?
 * I don't think that I will resign, unless something bad besets me in my real life - things are pretty stable and such extreme events that would change this, would apply equally to any other aritrator or arbcom candidate - like getting seriously injured, etc. As for the on-wikipedia stuff, I have a thick skin, so I don't think I could be driven off by a small number of disgruntled parties or mountains of work, but if it becomes obvious that there is significant rumbling across a significant cross-section of the community because of poor decisions, causing a loss of confidence in the arbcom, then I will resign. I have always regarded myself as an editor, who has a few buttons in order to execute deletions, protections, etc, under the will of the community, so if it becomes apparent that I am not doing performing my arbcom duties effectively, then I will resign and go back to editing, writing etc as I have no interest in being an obstacle who is neither arbitrating effectively nor editing. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

2. There may well arise cases where a dispute based on the inclusion of information whose accuracy is currently a point of seemingly reasonable controversy, possibly even bitter controversy, in that field of study. Should you encounter a case dealing with such information, and few if any of your colleagues on the committee were knowledgeable enough in the field for them to be people whose judgement in this matter could be completely relied upon, how do you think you would handle it?
 * At the moment, the ArbCom does not make direct decisions on content, but rather it is there to determine if the parties are conducting themselves in a way such that the article will evolve itself to an NPOV state as efficiently as possible, or in these cases, why the articles related to the dispute are not. By implementing solutions which promote editing style which results in article content that is in accordance with wikipedia policy, then the community methods of consensus and debate should give the correct equilibrium. Having said that, I can only see it as a positive, if arbitrators do some reading on the subject of the debate, so that a more precise answer is attained to questions such as what pov are the parties pushing? or whether the users are deliberately misrepresenting sources or exploiting extremist sources as being mainstream. This maximises the chances of making more correct decisions, so that the environment is more conducive to a proper community regarding the content in dispute. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Question from Samir
Please comment on your block log. What were the circumstances behind your block and what have you learned from it? -- Samir धर्म 01:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the first entry doesn't need any explanation since it was the result of an autoblock, which Hesperian mistakenly tried to unblock directly rather than my IP.
 * The second was the result of a rather embarrassing accident that I have, after I noticed this attack the talk page of DakotaKahn and was beaten to the revert and got a notice saying "rollback failed". I went to block the ip using the toolbox at the left of screen, but because the "rollback failed" still points to the original page, ie Dakota's page, I ended up managing to make an embarrassing mistake. So Freakofnurture blocked me for one minute at 2.51 UTC August 11, citing "decidedly poor aim", which presumably refers to my off-target block. After the block expired I was able to submit an apology to Dakota here and explain myself to Freakofnurture here. Freakofnurture replied here and here which seems to indicate the block may have been intended to be humourous. Dakota replied with this. Needless to say, the person who engaged in the activity attempted to torment me with his dynamic ips -, . I guess the incident serves to show that the block button is very sensitive because it is quite possible that people will look at a block log without investigating the circumstances to see if the block in question was legitimate, an accident or otherwise, which can cause negative publicity or perceptions of the person in question, when they have done nothing wrong. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions from maclean
1. You are listed as an active Mediation Cabal. Why did you join and what has kept you there? If not successful with the Arbitration Committee, will you stay at the Mediation Cabal? 2. Should arbitrators discuss remedies amongst themselves before they vote or approach all cases independently of one another?
 * Well, I was exploring the dispute resolution links on Wikipedia, and I found the page. I looked at the page and then looked at some of the disputes on offer, and some of the ones which were unwanted and needing a mediator caught my attention. I thought that I could help, so I just added my name to the list. I've kept my name there because I have continued to be active, I think I have done three, but mostly I am not short of things to investigate, because the quantity of disputes that I simply walk past and notice in article talk pages and debates, as well as many that other people have simply come straight to my talk page. Judging by the archives on my talk page, the vast majority of mediation has been informal via direct request. Irrespective of the outcome of the arbitration election, I would expect to continue to receive and take up requests to look up and help resolve disputes, formal or otherwise. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would encourage discussion, because this is the best way to point out any defects and inconsistencies in the proposed decisions and remedies, and would lead to a better result. If they only turned up and voted, then this would mean that there would be less scope for reasoning as to why a certain decision gives the best result for Wikipedia, and if there is any flawed reasoning, this could not be pointed out and could lead to more votes with wrong understanding. This of course does not mean that the arbitrators must all agree with one another, but a discussion will allow any misconceptions of the evidence and reasoning to be smoothed out. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Question from Dfrg.msc
In one sentence, what will you bring to the Arbitration Committee? Dfrg.m s c 1. 2 . Editor Review 23:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As shown as my activity level and User:Blnguyen/RfA, I believe that I will bring a higher level of efficiency, so that problems can be resolved and moved on more quickly, and high levels of objectivity and attention to detail as per my RfA research. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Question from User:BhaiSaab

 * 1) During the "Indian disputes" I felt sorry at times for you because one admin was being overwhelmed with several disputes at the time. Do you think you will be able to handle the workload and do you intend to assist with the primary draftings in the cases? BhaiSaab talk 13:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) *I'm quite optimistic that I can manage the workload, since I have experience with it so that I am definitely mentally ready for what I will face, with reference to some 4.5 religion archives and three Kannada-Marathi archives on my talk page. I think that the mental issue is the biggest impediment to human achievement and I feel I can rise to the challenge. In the six months after I have become an admin, I have written 35 of my 51 DYKs, my FA and 1 of 2 FLs. This is in addition to the 27 of 33 user talk archives which came after I became an admin, as well as the deletion backlog that I have attended to. I feel that I have become more productive after I became an administrator and feel that I can rise to the new responsibilities if it is entrusted to me. I do intend to assist with helping with the paperwork, as this is the bottleneck which is slowing down Wikipedia on the "hotspot" issues, as I noted in AnonEMouse's questions above. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

New messages
I do not edit Wikipedia on weekends - see the reports by User:Icey. I will answer new questions on Monday. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Voting in the elections
Hello, the ArbCom elections are coming up very soon and I was wondering if you would give your public assurance not to vote or comment on other candidates. I think this will help keep friction to a minimum. Imagine how ugly it would be if two people who vehemently publicly attacked and opposed each other both ended up sitting on the ArbCom together. I think, in the best interests of decorum, these kind of conflict of interest issues should be avoided. Do you agree? -- Cyde Weys 20:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

''Hello, I'd say that you ultimately reserve the right to excercise your vote. It should be already understood by all respected and high-esteemed candidates that by the end of this election, there should be no hard feelings regardless of supports or opposes. As from my observations at the January elections, hard feelings usually come not from the votes, but from the comments that are associated with the votes. Henceforth, I think restraining to comment in your votes is the best way to go. - Good luck and best regards, Mailer Diablo 22:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is fine with me, as it is how I normally operate. In the past when I have been a candidate in a multiple-party election, I have not supported or opposed any other candidates, and supporting one candidate and not another, that shows by implication who I would not like to work with relative to other users, and would cause problems in that scenario that you have given. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Question from TheronJ
1. Based on your background, any prior conflicts, etc., are there any areas or topics where you anticipate receiving requests for recusal, or where you might consider self-recusal? If so, what are those areas and how would you decide whether to recuse? Thanks, TheronJ 18:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) * Well, I like to think that I have quite strict standards in terms of conflicts of interest. I have been updating T:DYK and I strongly believe that one should not pick one's own suggestions for DYK, and I do not do so, even if others believe that my contribution deserves to be there. Regardless of whether it is correct, the fact that others are not chosen, will give rise to perceptions of partiality, and the editor morale would go down. Similarly, I do not pick articles where I have given prior advice to the author, eg, I asked others to evaluate Unification of Karnataka, as I advised User:Sarvagnya on how to make the article better (see the top of my current talk page). Aside from that, I do not choose disputed Cricket and Eurovision Song Contest articles, since I am very active in those areas, and revived WP:EURO earlier this year. As to my personal practices, I will not block people for personal attacks or incivility when I am on the receiving end of it, because I feel that a "plaintiff" should not also be a "judge". Some people have sworn at me and I have not blocked them. As such, in arbitration, I will not arbitrate where there are articles/content involved which I have edited, excluding vandal reverts, removing linkspam, fixing typos, anything related to the meaning of the main text etc. If I have had editing clashes with some users, I will not arbitrate on even unrelated topics, unless they ask me to. I have also mediated on some topics, such as the current Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar (see my talk archives). In such cases, I would recuse, unless all parties for some reason all want me to arbitrate, in which case I may reconsider, but would still lean towards recusing. As for general topics, the stuff that I write about - swimming, cricket, South Australian geography, Eurovision, mathematics and physics theorems, and Vietnamese translations are almost dead quiet, so I do not anticipate having an RfArb lodged in my topics of editing. In the case of Eurovision, I would definitely recuse. As I noted above, I am careful to avoid conflicts of interest, so I do not anticipate pushing the limits in any way in the case of a possible conflict of interest arising. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Question from Michael
Would you rather see a well-written and thuroughly referenced article with a tiny degree of bias, or a poorer article that is more neutral? michael talk 06:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This depends on what the type of article it is, and the type of content that is in dispute. If were are talking about a praise and criticism section of a religious leader, or a politician, then referencing is very important. This is expecially true if it could be defamatory or of a gossipy nature. On the other hand, an article discussing the strengths and weaknesses of a sportsperson for example, if it is more balanced, but sourced in a non-ideal manner, is more tolerable than one about politicians. Having said that, I tend to favour articles with sources, because at least then the reader knows that it isn't a joke or something that some random person made up or made their own essay. With black and white statements, this is less of a problem, as it is clear that it is meant as a factual statement, but references are more important in my opinion, unless the article is substantially one way traffic. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom Candidate Questions
1. As concisely as possible, please explain how you would continue with your stated commitment to the ArbCom process as an ordinary editor, should you NOT be "elected". Please be as concise as possible, preferably in 100 words or less.


 * My reasons for this question are three-fold.


 * First, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It's a powerful statement that has many meanings. It means that, among other things, any user has the power to do pretty much anything, should they wish it. I submit my own user contributions as evidence.
 * Second, one thing that's a constant is Wikipedia's GNU License. As an online-encyclopedia, the history of everything, every edit, every comment, every misdeed, every injury, and every achievement are readily available to anyone who wish to look at it. All they need is a computer, frankly, and they can dig away.
 * The third is merely a perception. Power is great, but when the entire history of your actions are utterly transparent, and anyone can do virtually anything on their first day here, it's really just a big illusion. I further submit that the more "power" you think you have, the more you have to "lose". You also have to more "work" and have less "fun".


 * I will continue editing as normal, and commenting on things unrelated to me if people ask me to do so. I will continue to comment on RfArbs which I trip across as a passerby and will cooperate if I somehow become a party, like Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar, which arose after I locked a bunch of pages and had to block some users who were later called to arbitration, even though I was not involved in the conflict myself. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

2. What do you think about this "election"? What do you think about your fellow "candidates"? What do you think about "campaign banners" on an online, open-source encyclopedia? What do you think about your own "campaign"? Please answer as concisely as possible, preferably in 100 words or less. For reference, please see this: [WP:Wikipedia is not a Democracy]]?


 * The election is going smoothly and seems in very good nature, which is nice. I have committed above to not commenting about candidates, as they may or may not be serving on the arbcom with me, were I to be elected. I don't really mind about those banners, as they haven't strayed into negative campaigning. I am feeling OK with things at the moment. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

3. What, specifically have you done wrong in the past as an editor, community member, administrator, and human being trying to create a world-wide online open source encyclopedia on Wikipedia? For reference, see my own user contributions. Please be as concise as possible, preferably in 100 words or less.


 * The answer to Samir is one. Sometimes when I miss something, such as updating DYK without archiving something and others will point it out to me. Sometimes I click the wrong button etc. I tend to be pretty restrained, so I haven't had many of my admin actions reversed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

4. Do you apologize for your actions, and who are you apologising to, specifically? Please be as concise as possible, preferably in 100 words or less.


 * I apologise when I make mistakes to those I have inconvenienced and possibly embarrassed, eg, see my answer to Samir above, and for the other gaffes that I make from time to time. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

5. Hypothetically, how would you deal with an explosion of editors and users behaving very badly because Wikipedia has just aquired a bigger "stick". For reference please see Soft Power.


 * Are you meaning that you envision a shift in culture towards harsher policies of blocking people? The ArbCom doesn't legislate new policies, so arbitrating upon the new policies is what is relevant. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

6. What, exactly do you want do on Wikipedia? Why did you come here, and why did you stay for more than a minute? What's fun for you here? What makes you happy here? Please be as concise as possible, preferably in 100 words or less.


 * I came here because I was looking for some info, found some really detailed and comprehensive info in some areas, and then I decided to investigate some other parts of the encyclopedia that I was interested but were smaller ticket items, and I found that there were holes that I could readily plug. So the best thing is to bring more information to wikipedia (as well as removing wrong into), in general making the content more comprehensive, concise and accurate, to make it better than when I found it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions from LoveLight
Would you kindly evaluate and/or comment article 911. As a reader do you find that piece factual and accurate? As an editor do you find it satisfying (with regards to our fundamental Wiki policies and guidelines)? As future arbitrator how do you feel about status quo imposed on that and similar "ever burning" editorials? Lovelight 10:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I simply do not know enough in that area to make a comment, as the article is very comprehensive. In regards to arbitration, I have stated that I feel that the arbitration committee should stick to whether the parties are behaving and debating in such a way as to achieve a proper article in relation to Wikipedia policies such as NPOV, NOR, V, RS, etc. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Another question from Samir
In your statement, you suggest that Arbcom is too slow in dealing with troublemakers, yet you later assert that tailored remedies would be useful in dealing with them. Please reconcile these two statements. -- Samir धर्म 13:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the first statement I feel is correct, and moreso in light of the relatively long time it takes to get the cases through the proceedings, allowing the users extra time to continue their edit-warring, etc, throughout the arbitration case. The second case is not a contradiction, because in some cases, there are users who edit on multiple topics, some of which may be quite unrelated, and sometimes they are very productive and edit harmoniously in one area, whilst being disruptive and breaking policy in others. So, no I do not feel that there is a contradiction, although the word "targetted banning" is probably more concise (and less confusing).... Thus, this means selective banning to stop editing in areas in which there is disruption, but not in areas where there is productive editing, if this applies.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Followup to Samir's question by Chick Bowen
When you said that outright bans are a last resort, how rare do you expect them to be? That is, if you were confronted with an editor who had a history of really bad edit-warring related to, say, sputtering, and was mostly OK otherwise but with incivility when running across fellow sputtering enthusiasts at RFA and AFD, how bad would the behavior have to be for you to consider outright banning, and contrarily, how would you know whether an editor who has contributed unproductively in that area would be better or worse if his efforts were deflect toward, say, enthalpy? Chick Bowen 14:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well in most cases, the users that do get banned tend to be single-issue editors and, whereas those users that have some postive topics and some negative topics tend to be very much in the minority. So when I mean a "last resort", it means if possible, to salvage something useful while stopping disruptive areas of editing, but in most cases, the banned users are only editing in one topic, disruptively, and there isn't any need for a "last resort" if there are no area in which there is a net positive effect. In regards to the comment about sputtering, I take it that the user would be banned from editing sputtering related matter and put on civility and/or NPA parole. If the user continues to hassle other users they met from their sputtering experiences, then the parole would cover the incidents in conjunction with the WP:STALK which applies for all users, so that if the user's behaviour continues, it will be quickly enough extended to longer blocks and total banning, as the user is already in trouble for their abrasive relations with other users. As to whether the person would subsequently become useful in enthalpy, I am not in the business of randomly speculating that a user will turn their efforts to productive efforts on other articles - they will have to have shown past record of solid useful contributions in another area, as they have already have accumulated a record of disruption. If a user with only a net disruptive contribution is banned, they could always reincarnate into a completely different area of editing and make extremely positive contributions of which they had shown no earlier propensity. In that case, we would never know it was the banned user, and nothing would be lost. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Followup to Chick's question by Haphar 15:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
It does not seem to me that you exhibited uniformity in restraint while blocking users. Cases in point that I observed ( and commented to you about even then )-How come you were quick to ban user's such as ? While you were more than tolerant of his opponents who were also sockpuppets - Netaji and  ? Haphar 15:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nothing could be further from the truth - You appear to have implied that I am nurturing Hindu extremist users whilst attacking or hunting down Muslim users.
 * - I blocked the user in question for a week for uploading an image which he created of a pig with Allah written on it in Arabic - User_talk:FairNBalanced/Archive_2
 * later changed to - I blocked the user for one week in early July for making inflammatory anti-Muslim comments"Thanks the gods for that. We never needed pedophiles anyway" calling Muhammad a pedophile, and then blocked him for another week immediately after for "You have more chips on your shoulders than your Nazi pope" "You're just scardy-scardy that the Shiv Sainiks will OWN THIS WHOLE GOSH-DARNED COUNTRY one day. And then we'll all have justice.Like I said, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"
 * - My 1 week block of BhaiSaab was upheld unanimously by the arbitration committee - Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar. If Hkelkar had made comments like Bose and FairNBalanced above, or made mirror comments to those of BhaiSaab about Arabs, then he too would have been blocked similarly.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The claim that I am giving free pasture to sockpuppets of Subhash_bose/Shiva's Trident/Hkelkar is wrong. emailed me from the same account at Subhash_bose and I blocked it. The arbitration committee is well aware of this - see the above case.
 * Haphar claims that I am assisting Netaji (Subhash_bose) to cause disruption - Nothing can be further than the truth - I blocked him four times for a total of 21 days, as well as indefinitely banning Pusyamitra_Sunga because of his email gaffe. As I was the only person in possession of the email, I could have turned the other way and let Pusyamitra_Sunga carry on his activities. At the time, Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Subhash_bose run by Essjay did not conclusively show sockpuppetry, so I left a note for Essjay, the most experienced checkuser operator, which he replied to here, which gives the indication that he saw my actions as pro-active, not recalcitrant.
 * Any other admin is able to block the parties, and I did not unrevert their blocks so that the users in question could run loose, except when some users were blocked without checkuser and subsequently cleared.Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Subhash_bose
 * Haphar's assertions that I have been going hard on him but letting Bose/Kelkar loose are without merit. I blocked Bose for a week on July 11, and Pusyamitra_Sunga indefinitely on the same day. Haphar continued in flame-debating with Sunga here, and I asked him to refrain from doing so, but he defended his verbal counter-attacks implying that I had let Bose run loose, despite the fact that I had already blocked Bose and only reminded Haphar to not return fire.
 * The irrelevant commentary and sniping continued from both sides, until August 8, when I again blocked Subhash_bose. After warning Haphar previously, I this time had no option but to block him as well for a shorter duration - after he would not refrain from counter-attacks - (,, , "which is why we have stooped to your standard" - to opposing editors). Haphar complained to me on my userpage , asserting that I had not blocked the person who is causing the problem - this is false - as I blocked Subhash_bose again. He also again defended his attacks, and then proceeded to post another user's past on an article talk page . Such verbal sparring necessitated the locking of the page three times.
 * I did not call Hkelkar/Bose hindu extremists, your response seems to indicate you think so, however I would like to clarify that I am NOT implying any religious motive here, so please keep religion out of this. I am saying you were biased, you would know the reason best. Also if a person A transgresses a law 10 times and is punished twice, whereas his opponent B transgresses the law once and is immideatly punished, then though the punisher can show that he punished A twice vs once for B and hence he is not biased, in reality by ignoring A transgressions far more often than B's, he has been biased. Which is my moot point about your bias. Haphar 11:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect. Here, Netaji asks why you want him to stop making comments about other people's religion, whilst you do not stop yourself. You justified this by equating the other religion with terrorism. Yet you say that I blocked you at every opportunity. This clearly isn't the case as you were never blocked for that. It also shows you to not have the moral ground you claim to have. Aksi has pointed out another example where you indicate that other people have been smoking marijuana, and yet I did not block. You requested me to block Netaji but I cannot unless I block you too. As I pointed out above, you already took exception to me asking you not to taunt a sockpuppet that is already banned, but your reply indicates you feel nobody is even allowed to warn you for attacking another user, let alone block you for making jibes to other users about terrorism and smoking marijuana. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

further questions
Q: How come that the only unblocks that were done were for Subhash Bose ? And after an email had shown that Pusyamitra was the sock of Subhash, when an accusation came up about Hkelkar being a sock of Subhash's how come an IRC session was set up by you to try and prove his innocence ? And how come on this IRC session, which is off Wikipedia- A wikipedia user's religion was questioned ? Is that ethical for an Admin ? And is it ethical for an Admin wanting to be an Arbcom member to use issues brought up to his talk page to ask for a poll to decide his ( the Admin's) religion ? Haphar 07:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, Subhash was blocked along with a few other users, due to allegations of sock-puppetry. When the RFCU showed that they were negative, the only proper course of action is to unblock. If I really was trying to help Subhash at every turn, I would have wheel-warred with the other admin and unblocked Subhash before the RFCU came back, as the blocking admin deemed Subhash guilty before a RFCU was conducted. The fact that I blocked the sock when only I knew that Pus was a sock shows that I am not protecting the user. I could have legitimately unblocked him on the presumption of innocence had I been patronising his activities as you indicate above. The users wanted to show that they were separate, so they are entitled as any other to present their case; I cannot have the power to ban users as sockpuppets simply because they edit the same religious ideology, otherwise, we would end up with only 1 Jewish, 1 Muslim, 1 Christian and 1 Hindu editor on the religious articles. Unless you want me to only block him against policy, then I cannot. Your question presumes something which did not happen, as I pointed out above, you once claimed to me after you were blocked that I did not block Bose, which is clearly false. I do not see how my asking for feedback on religious bias is a negative thing. If someone raises an issue with me, in a non-confidential manner, then I am entitled as is any user to ask for third party comment. If asking for feedback is prohibited, then Editor Review, Requests for adminship, etc, should be deleted. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Question from Zoe
What is your feeling concerning the potential vote to desysop User:MONGO? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, seeing as I have already promised above not to comment on other election candidates, I will refrain from doing so, as Jimbo has left the door open for candidates to un-withdraw. Aside from that, I have not had the time to look at all the length details of the case and the preceding RfC in such a manner as to make a completely valid and accurate judgment to the detail that I feel is expected of an arbcom member (most of my RfA noms take a few days to be done). The Arbcom has frequently desysopped admins who block people and or lock articles with which they are currently involved. The desysopping is to be expected given that the arbcom has concluded that MONGO did such things, however I am not in the position to yet conclude whether the findings of fact are appropriate. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Question from Susan Lesch
Thanks for your hard work doing so many nominations and updates to Did you know... on the Main Page. How do you feel you have managed Conflict of Interest, for example, about which articles reach the Main Page, which photos are chosen (a decision that places that article at the top of the list, on some displays "above the fold"), and when articles appear? (Bias disclosure: my question is somewhat colored by my nomination from 6 December being deleted and later assessed unusable today by another administrator in the group that maintains DYK, not yourself, so apologies as I have DYK on my mind.) Thanks in advance for your thoughts. Susanlesch 00:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This issue has been discussed many times at WT:DYK, and there is a strong consensus that people should not pick their own articles, or pick articles that they nominated for DYK, because it is a conflict of interest and will lead to question marks about why other articles are not picked, irrespective of whether the articles were discarded correctly or incorrectly. I strongly supported this, and have not and do not select any articles which I either wrote or nominated. Also, since I restarted WikiProject Eurovision after it went inactive, I do not choose Eurovision articles if there is any complaint raised (as sometimes mild objections are ignored), and so I ignored a Eurovision article which I personally thought was OK here - . Thanks, Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 06:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)