Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for Crazytales56297

Questions from Torinir
I'm asking these questions all applicants:

1) How would you handle a situation where an error of judgment has occured, especially if evidence is provided to confirm that the position is incorrect?
 * I'd inform the decision taker of their judgmental error through their talk page. It's up to them whether to change the decision. I can't force them to do that; I can only present evidence that their position was incorrect. ~  crazy tales -talk- 22:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

2) If a decision of yours, while technically a correct one, would knowingly be unpopular en masse, how would you present your decision?
 * I remain committed to trying to make the right decision, not the popular one. I'd present the decision totally factually, and not try it to portray in an overly positive light. People can appeal my decision if they don't agree. I have no problem if this happens, and would view it as a learning experience. ~  crazy tales -talk- 22:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

3) Place each of these policies/guidelines listed in order of precedence (to you) starting with highest priority. There is really no right or wrong answer. I'm interested in seeing what you would normally look at first when assessing an article.

WP:V* WP:BLP* WP:NOT* WP:NPOV* WP:NOR* WP:C* WP:RS* WP:N


 * WP:NOT - It's pretty obvious as to what doesn't belong in the mainspace, and this doesn't take much time to evaluate if it's obvious. Do the easy stuff first.
 * WP:C - Thanks Daniel Brandt for finding loads of copyvios. You really helped out Wikipedia's legality and compliance with copyright laws.
 * WP:BLP - I believe in nipping potential libel in the bud before it turns into OTRS -> OFFICE -> lawsuit.
 * WP:NPOV - NPOV objectivity is what makes a good encyclopedia.
 * WP:NOR - OR often leads to violent edit wars: qv Lightbringer and Tojo. These, in turn, lead to dispute resolution ladder. I think that this all could be prevented by a good enforcement of NOR.
 * WP:V - Unverifiable material is all-too-often speculation. An encyclopedia should have most primarily facts.
 * WP:RS - Sort of goes hand in hand with verifiability. Verify facts in reliable sources.
 * WP:N - WP:NOT paper. Notability standards are subjective.

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.
 * This is my first ArbCom election for which I am an active wikipedian, so I can only speak in general terms. I feel it's important to make informed decisions in the ArbCom elections because the ArbCom is powerful as a last reaort in the dispute resolution process, and also because you wouldn't want CheckUser and oversight privileges falling into irresponsible hands. This is even more serious than adminship falling to irresponsible users.

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'd make WP:IAR policy. Not that I have no respect for process, but I believe that several disputes and vandal attacks could have been dealt with more effectively if policy/process were less important in the users' decision making. For instance, during the ceiling cat images attack this June, it could have been better dealt with by straightaway deleting the nonencyclopedic image instead of first putting it on MediaWiki:Bad image list.

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?
 * I expect that I'll decline checkuser/oversight privileges if offered them, even though I understand the policies. I don't fancy getting possibly harassed off-wiki. However, i would probably accept an RCU clerkship.

4. What is integrity, accountability and transparency to you on the ArbCom?
 * I believe ArbCom members should be held responsible for their actions, and be made to defend them in any appeals that may occur. Being esparated by a computer screen doesn't make the ArbCom significantly different from a panel of judges. They still need to own up to their actions.

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?
 * I believe that humour has a place on Wikipedia. It's part of the tradition, and it doesn't hurt encyclopædia building. It's just harmless fun.

Question from User:Balla Laika
Wikipedia Board members as well as stewards are now required to make their real names known. Additionally, almost all current ArbComm members either use their real name as their userid or have allowed their real names to become known which adds to the transparency and accountability of the ArbComm. Are you willing to reveal your real name? Balla Laika 23:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I make my real name known on my userpage. It's Chris Chan. ~  crazy tales -Stalk My Contribs!!!- 21:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

(Unfair) question from jd2718
Unfair it is, but it should be asked: you are young, perhaps the youngest candidate on the board at this time. (no, I am not going to question your experience - you've been editing over a year and a half). Do you think a teenager is more likely to change interests over a three year period than a 40-something year-old? IOW, even if you make a great arbitrator tomorrow, don't we have a higher risk of you leaving than with the other candidates (and the ArbCom has high turnover as it is). Jd2718 14:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, why did you say this is an unfair question? It's certainly a valid concern, and one I don't mind addressing. However, I don't think of it this way. Age has nothing to do with dedication - we have a 14-year-old admin. He's still active on the project. I believe that showing my dedication for 1.5 years is enough proof to assume I'll be around for years to come. ~  crazy tales -Stalk My Contribs!!!- 03:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Ragesoss
In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?
 * In science-related articles, none. However, in religious contexts, you must take care to not become overly scientific and disprove the existence of a god. Scientific and religious/spiritual viewpoints must be given equal credence in religious articles, especially because they often differ so much. ~  crazy tales -Stalk My Contribs!!!- 02:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from maclean
1. Do you have dispute resolution experience in any of the following areas: Mediation Committee, Mediation Cabal, Third opinion, Requests for comment, or Association of Members' Advocates? If not successful with the Arbitration Committee, will you seek a position with the Mediation Committee?
 * No, I've not involved myself in dispute resolution yet, except in limited capacity on the admin noticeboards and minimal RFC involvement. If unsuccessful with the Arbcom, I anticipate that I will involve myself with 3O and MedCom. ~  crazy tales -Stalk My Contribs!!!- 02:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

2. According to your userpage you are a member of Esperanza. As an Esperanzian, would you recuse yourself from a case that involved another Esperanzian?
 * Yes. It's the fair thing to do, as Esperanza is a close association. If a party to the case were another Esperanzian, that would skew my judgment. ~  crazy tales -Stalk My Contribs!!!- 02:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Three questions from Carcharoth
These are copies of questions initially asked by John Reid.

Questions from Newyorkbrad
Welcome to the race. Some standard questions I'm asking all the candidates (at least if no one's asked them before). Newyorkbrad 00:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) What can be done to reduce delays in the arbitration process?
 * I believe that the arbitration process necessarily takes some time to arrive at a decision. But there can be a deadline for accepting evidence and testimonials; this would speed up the process considerably. ~  crazy tales -Stalk My Contribs!!!- 13:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) If elected, do you intend to take part in actually writing the decisions in arbitration cases? If so, do you have any writing experience that would be relevant to this task?
 * I may. I've been told in the past that I'm a good writer, and i maintain a blog. ~  crazy tales -Stalk My Contribs!!!- 13:11, 4 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 anticipate trsigning unless I get to a very high stress level in real life. I don't think this is very likely. Negative feelings from others about a decision I make would probably not give me cause for resignation. ~  crazy tales -Stalk My Contribs!!!- 13:17, 4 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?
 * I would recruit the opinions of uninvolved experts in the field, likely through the related wikiproject's talk page. ~  crazy tales -Stalk My Contribs!!!- 13:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Anomo
1. Do you think there should be an age requirement for ArbCom? Anomo 11:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No; I believe that maturity != age. They're totally independent: I've seen fifth-graders more mature than my friends in ninth grade.

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 11:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I totally oppose such activity. Blocking is not supposed to be punitive at all, much less punitive many months ex post facto. I totally agree with WP:BLOCK and feel that admins have violated it in the past and continue to do so. ~  crazy tales -Stalk My Contribs!!!- 21:16, 4 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 11:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I support doing it for indefinitely blocked vandal-only accounts who are obviously not here to contribute constructively. Temp. blocks don't need this. ~  crazy tales -Stalk My Contribs!!!- 21:16, 4 December 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 11:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that's inexcusable. You should own up to your mistakes, not cover them. ~  crazy tales -Stalk My Contribs!!!- 21:16, 4 December 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 11:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless they're a permanently banned user using their talk page to troll, I see no need to do so. ~  crazy tales -Stalk My Contribs!!!- 21:16, 4 December 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 18:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's because, in my opinion, the ArbCom has always been composed of admins chiefly. Also, administrators have the community trust. But that doesn't mean they should be treated differently than non-admins. ~  crazy tales -Stalk My Contribs!!!- 21:16, 4 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?) :-)


 * 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?
 * I believe that ArbCom should have this power, especially when consensus is disputed between users. ~Crazytales56297 | t+c 21:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * I believe that ArbCom, as the supreme dispute resolution authority, should have this power. There are far fewer ArbCom members than bureaucrats. ~Crazytales56297 | t+c 21:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)  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?
 * I agree. A user with a good track record should be treated differently to a user with no record of good behaviour. ~Crazytales56297 | t+c 21:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) 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.
 * I believe that neither is more important than the other, and in fact the emphasis on article writing for admin candidates has excluded many good admin candidates from the mop. I believe they are two totally different things. Some are better at one than others. ~Crazytales56297 | t+c 21:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) 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.)
 * I disagree with Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun because I feel that the passed decision was too strict on a 13-year-old. Also, that was an isolated incident of personal attacks. By the time the decision was passed, Minun had totally reformed and become a model Wikipedian. ~Crazytales56297 | t+c 21:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) 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?
 * If Fred wants to do it, then he can. I don't see anything wrong with it if Fred takes the responsibility upon himself. ~Crazytales56297 | t+c 00:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?

Question from Dfrg.msc
In one sentence, what will you bring to the Arbitration Committee? Dfrg.m s c 1. 2 . Editor Review 23:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll bring representation of non-admins. ~  crazy tales -Stalk My Contribs!!!- 13:04, 4 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)
 * Yes. It's only fair that I don't comment or vote on other candidates. ~  crazy tales -Stalk My Contribs!!!- 13:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Question from TheronJ
1. Crazytales, you mention above that you would recuse in cases where at least on party was an Esperanzan. Considering that Esperanza currently has 719 members, do you think that this policy would limit your effectiveness as an ArbComm member? Why or why not?
 * No; consider that there are many thousands of active Wikipedians. Esperanza comprises a small fraction. ~Crazytales56297 | t+c 23:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

2. Based on your background, any prior conflicts, etc., are there any other 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 19:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I anticipate receiving and complying requests for recusation in WikiProject Automobiles and WikiProject Michigan, being members of those projects. ~Crazytales56297 | t+c 23:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions from NinaEliza 18:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
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".

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]]?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 10:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Question from Zoe
What is your feeling concerning the potential vote to desysop User:MONGO? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)