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

Feel free to ask me any questions you may have about my experience, my philosophy, or my outlook as it pertains to conflict resolution. I hope that I can give you a full answer. If it is not a pleasing answer, I can at least assure you that it will be an honest one. Geogre 01:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Warning: this candidate believes in full answers. I really do. One reason I'm running is that I believe that people haven't been explaining themselves fully, so, below, my answers are all sort of long. If you take the time and put in the effort to ask the question, I will try to put in the time and thought to answer it. Geogre 20:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Question(s) from xaosflux

 * 1) As functions assigned by ArbCom, describe your view on the assignments of Oversight and Checkuser permissions, including thresholds for (or even the possibility of) new applicants. (Question from —  xaosflux  Talk 02:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's difficult to answer fully, but I'll try. First, let me answer the negative of your question: check user, in particular, is massively sensitive.  Wikipedia is built on anonymous contributions.  Despite our account names, we are still anonymous, and even the people who "edit under their real name" may not be doing so.  Therefore, access to the data that checkuser yields is, by its nature, super-procedural.  I.e. it is something that is beyond the walls of Wikipedia, because it brings in the flesh and blood (or modem, anyway) person.  Therefore, to answer your actual question, I feel that access to Checkuser must be given very carefully to those whose ethical standards are far beyond question.  Even a credible allegation of misuse should result in the loss of such priviledges.  The reasons are regrettably obvious:  we have had stalkers, people trying to get other editors fired, people who have actually shown up in editor's rooms.  Anonymity is a founding principle, so I would be terribly reluctant to extend Checkuser access and quicker than most to revoke it.  At present, the tasks people perform can entail access to Checkuser data, and this makes us, in essence, approve programmers on a basis of their skills rather than their calm.  I would love to be able to rationalize the selection criteria for Checkuser and offer up at least nominal guidelines for those who have access as something coincident to their jobs.
 * Oversight is new, and with new things the practice fills a need and the best practice guidelines follow after. To me, need should always be a second place argument, because it is need that justifies any abuse as well as any cure of problems.  I'm not as familiar with oversight as I need to be to offer any good answer to how it could or could not change, but I think there is no crime in responding to emergencies with emergency actions, so long as we very quickly thereafter accept the fact that we have to guard our users and our readers alike, that our silly words on these silly screens can have dire consequencies in the worlds of politics, economics, and personal misery.  We cannot prevent all harm and remain Wikipedia, but we must do what we can within our mission.  Geogre 02:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from jd2718
Geogre, as a longtime user you may have been party to the occasional dispute. Have you ever benefited from arbitration or mediation? Could you say something about the experience? What would the ArbCom lose if you were not elected? Jd2718 03:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I've never been the subject of arbitration, although I have been involved in a few cases as a witness, so to speak. I'm not saying that I'm more sinned against than sinning, but I do my best to avoid conflicts.  I cannot say that any person benefits from arbitration.  Honestly, it isn't designed to help a person, but rather to help the atmosphere for the people in general.  It is my own view that arbitration is about behaviors rather than persons, and we do best when we abstract the behaviors from the people.  When a user is working on a history of bad action, a present of bad action, and promises a future of bad action, then arbitration has to rule that the actions aren't permissible.
 * Mediation has worked very well in some cases, and it's preferrable whenever the bad actions are coming from jarring personalities rather than a person's whole character. Mediation has also failed spectacularly and acted as a waiver for further action.  It takes skilled and patient (and active) mediators and willing and patient participants for mediation to work.  I do not see a lesson to draw, except that when mediation is failing, we need to be able to call upon an outside assessment and determine whether it's time to arbitrate instead, and do so quickly.
 * Arbitration can create as many hard feelings as anything else, but that's one reason why it should never be expected to fix people. It can only rule that a set of actions is such that it threatens the peace and operation of Wikipedia or that they are significant but need only clarification.  Anyone who believes that any editor will go into arbitration unhappy and come out happy is somewhat missing the point of the process and certainly misunderstanding how corrosive and wounding it can be.
 * One of the reasons that I'm running this time is that I have seen the decisions of ArbCom inflame passions or appear mysterious. I hope that I am articulate enough to be able to explain to people objectively (or at least disinterestedly) what is going on and to be polite enough to ameliorate the pain.  There are some excellent candidates running this time, and I do not put myself in contrast to them.  Instead, ArbCom would lose, I believe, another person of integrity, consistency, intelligence, and, I would like to think, wisdom.  My particular strength in contrast may only be my experience as a writer and "content" provider to Wikipedia.  It's a little unusual that I should need to point this out or say it, but I do think that the backgrounds of ArbCom members should represent all of our community and, through an accident of timing, current members represent the writers less than the make up of the community.  Geogre 11:55, 7 November 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.
 * This is a dangerous question, as the best way to answer it is to point to previous bad choices, and that brings acrimony or questioning the voters. We should all believe in the voters or quit Wikipedia, because the project is based on the idea that the commoner is king.  Where voters have been mistaken, it has been because of election-year conversions and the weight of "awe" around certain names.  If voters don't know the candidates, they have to very seriously investigate or abstain, because the consequences of a bad choice can be very grave.  There have been people who have worked consistently to create echelons of rulership, people who have themselves superior, and people who have "experience with ArbCom" by being in the dock frequently, and they can craft a sugary candidate's statement.  (I am not referring to any current or past members of ArbCom.)  Some now-banned editors ran for ArbCom and received many votes.  Because we have real trouble educating new and casual users about the characters and histories of the candidates, it gets to be extremely important for the voters themselves to pick up the burden.  If they do not, if destructive users garner big vote stacks, then it justifies those people who advocate a purely selected and non-elected ArbCom.  However, the vote leaders, the vote winners, do not tend to be people with whom I would have any quarrel.  Geogre 12:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * YAA (Yet Another Addendum): I have thought about this question some more, and I remember pretty well the last elections and the rationales voters stated, and I do have one thing to say.  People should remember, in these elections and candidate statements, that you are voted not on, "Is this how I want ArbCom to be," but, "Do I want this voice to join ArbCom."  The current ArbCom, like the one before it, is not homogenous.  Each person is just one vote, one voice.  Geogre 12:07, 9 November 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?
 * Oh, now that's a set up. :-) Ok, because I really believe it: WP:IAR.  IAR is written clearly enough.  It says that there are novel circumstances with abuse and issues that have never been anticipated coming up and causing a crisis (the BLP cases, for example).  When these new and dangerous things happen, we cannot sit on our hands and let the project get destroyed because there is no rule.  That is all something I wholeheartedly agree with.  However, people have a tendency to read the names of policies and to throw policies like missiles, whereas IAR gets used like a truncheon.  I have seen so many, many people justifying unilateral actions with "IAR" that I think we are better off without it.  The basic argument of the policy is something that we will obey without a policy in place telling us to.  I do not think we are in any danger whatever of sitting in legal paralysis, so IAR is not necessary and, as a policy statement, it is used destructively.  Geogre 12:37, 7 November 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?
 * Checkuser is amazingly sensitive. My own advantage here is that I have absolutely no interest in people.  :-)  I am neither curious nor interested in the people beyond the pixels, as they all tend to be, like me, much shabbier than the exalted presences on the screen.  I would be willing to perform Checkuser when an arbitration case required it, but not for general noticeboard or preventative issues.  That, I think, is the difference between checkuser access and someone who does Checkuser.  I have read the policies on Checkuser, and I am very, very sensitive to the potential for abuse.  If RFCU is lacking personnel, I will volunteer as I have time.  As for Oversight, I have not gone over that issue very thoroughly, and I am ambivalent about the practice.  It can be a life and death action, but I do not feel strongly enough to volunteer to be part of that.  If we are in a crisis, of course, I will step up, if I can.  If I cannot, I will nag someone else with integrity who has access.  Geogre 12:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

4. What is integrity, accountability and transparency to you on the ArbCom?
 * Integrity means consistency. It means being true to the issues you believe in over the people you like.  I have been somewhat consistent over the years about accountability and transparency, and I will leave friends in the lurch (as they're friends because they know that I will act on my principles first) and supporting people I dislike if the issues are at play.  Currently (at the time of writing) there is a controversy about user Homey on AN/I.  I do believe that the current sockpuppet should be banned, but I am also interested in our getting a solid ruling.  The expedient answer is to block.  The long term answer is to resume prior ArbCom actions.  Accountability is possible only with some level of transparency.  I don't like secrecy, and Wikipedia is built on each edit being visible and rewritable in our articles.  It has bothered me that we then have segments where we insist that the man behind the curtain is the Great Oz.  It isn't that we don't need an Oz, but we don't need the curtain.  We should be able to respect the fact that the guys back there are just like the guys in front, only performing a different job.
 * I know that you are asking about specifics, so I will offer some. I believe that the ArbCom mailing list should be private and that its privacy is inviolate.  However, I do not think it would be amiss to offer a summary once a month with names suppressed: "Two members sought further information on [case]. One member worried that [case] was growing stale" if needed.  I also think that the names of those with access should be open.  If there are allegations that untoward influence has been exerted, we should be able to assert a negative.  Additionally, I think that there needs to be an appeal to recusal (not an appeal process above what we have in general).  If I were weighing in on a Giano case and didn't recuse myself, I think there should be some mechanism short of appealing the whole decision.  I also think that there should be some internal procedural guides that we should develop so that we can be regular in our actions.
 * Most particularly, I think we should communicate in the broadest cases. If a case starts gathering huge participation, it's fair enough that we be expected to be frank with the people who have power: the editors.  Essentially, I believe that no one on Wikipedia has "power."  We all have volunteer jobs, and no good comes from treating anyone as beneath or above.  Geogre 12:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

@ Thank you for your answers! :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 11:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from NatusRoma
Why should the Wikipedia community give you responsibilities that will take away from writing articles? NatusRoma | Talk 05:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I reject the premise. I write very quickly, and I enjoy it.  When I became an administrator, my article writing actually increased considerably.  I do not believe that I will slacken in article writing at all, as, and this is hard to explain, I do "policy stuff" and "article stuff" at different parts of my day.  I will go over to the library, gather up notes, shape a narrative in my head, organize, and then blurt it out generally in the afternoon or just in the early evening, and I go to AN/I now or other controversy-oriented matters in the morning and at night (see this time stamp, for example).  If it really came down to a choice, I would have to assess where I felt that I was doing the most good and act accordingly.  I do not think that it would be a choice.  Geogre 12:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from User:Ideogram
During the Giano case I tried to ask you questions and you became offended and decided not to answer them. Can you explain why this happened, and will you be more responsive to me here and in the future? --Ideogram 06:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It was my feeling, rightly or wrongly, that you were asking motivated questions designed to get to a particular conclusion and that you had answered the questions to your own satisfaction ahead of time. Given that that case was enormous in philosophy, in action, and in participation, more words were going to do little but give all sides a chance to offend or say something they did not believe.  As Samuel Butler said, "Who complies against his will/ Is of his own opinion still," and I felt that you were not going to change your mind.  Additionally, I thought we were covering the same questions over and over.  Rather than saying something rude to you or joining the others who wanted to characterize your edits harshly, I simply ducked out.
 * If you have questions about my philosophies toward ArbCom, I certainly welcome them, but I hope that you understand that a failure to answer might be an attempt to avoid conflict rather than a statement that there is a conflict. I've often thought that some of the fights people have on Wikipedia could be avoided if one side said, "Go about your business and prosper" and just left it.  Geogre 12:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am sorry you felt that way, although I can see how I might have given that impression. My intention was never to pretend to be neutral, but on the other hand I was (and still am) prepared to be proven wrong in my interpretation of your position.


 * Certainly it was an unpleasant first impression and I currently view your ArbCom candidacy with some skepticism. However, my purpose always has been and still is to understand your opinions better and I welcome the opportunity to continue pursuing that goal.  Of course if you feel the conversation is not productive no one can force you to answer my questions, but I think your response to me, as someone critical of your views, will reveal much about how you might deal with controversy as an ArbCom member.  I was not planning to pursue the issues further but your ArbCom candidacy inevitably puts you in the spotlight.


 * To start, let me ask you to describe, concretely, what is right about the current ArbCom, what is wrong, and how you propose to fix it. Again, I beg you to be clear and concise.  My previous attempts to push you in this direction with some humor proved to be disastrous failures, but they were born of a very real frustration with your communication style.


 * If at any time you feel my questions are phrased poorly or the conversation is going in the wrong direction by all means make your concerns known to me and I will try to address them. I feel that it is possible for people to have a productive conversation and come to a mutual understanding even if they never agree.  I hope you feel the same.  --Ideogram 14:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, first, there is nothing institutionally wrong with ArbCom. I had reason to doubt the objectivity and dispassion of some members of ArbCom (and always phrased it that way and always turned away people wanting to complain about ArbCom as ArbCom), but that's not the same thing.  It is not up to me, or any candidate, to fix the problems, as those "problems" are people, and one can fix a dog, not a person.  If I had felt strongly about the individual or individuals who I thought went awry in that case, I would have pursued it.  I didn't.  The case is closed now, and we really shouldn't be discussing it.  If you lose confidence in my ability to be objective and considerate because of it, then that's regrettable but not remediable here.  The only actual inherent problem at present is that the work is dull and overwhelming (and I'm both dull and overwhelming, myself, so it ought to fit), and so the first one to rush through the door with a proposed solution shapes the debate.  Again, though, that's human psychology and not policy or process.  Geogre 15:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am deliberately trying to focus on issues relevant to your ArbCom candidacy and not ask questions about the wider issues raised in the Giano case. However, it was clear from that discussion that you feel there are some things wrong with Wikipedia today and if you are elected to ArbCom your opinions on those issues may affect your decisions even if unconsciously.


 * Also, your behavior in the Giano case is my only experience with you and I cannot avoid using it to form my opinion about you. For example, do you feel you demonstrated patience there or that you have a bit of a temper?  Do you think how you behaved there is indicative of how you might behave on the ArbCom or that it is irrelevant?


 * What I am really trying to get at here is, why should I not be skeptical of your candidacy? Will you try to address my concerns or remain doubtful about my motives?  I believe that I am capable of changing my mind, but it will take some hard work.  How do you want this conversation to proceed?  --Ideogram 16:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The questions you ask appear more personal than general, and so I would encourage you to pursue them on a talk page rather than here. If you have a specific question here, I will try to answer it.  Geogre 16:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I feel the question of your character is highly relevant to your suitability for the ArbCom, but if you do not wish to discuss it there is nothing I can do. --Ideogram 16:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What is your interpretation of WP:NOT? Do you agree with this policy? --Ideogram 10:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It actually doesn't say much, because there isn't much to say on the subject. Wikipedia has no government, so it cannot be a democracy or anything else.  At the same time, we are answerable to us, so it always comes down to preponderance or majority or absolute consent, no matter what we say.  This is inherent in being a volunteer project.  We do vote, of course, but a vote is not a binary choice: we discuss as we express our desires, and that is how it should be.  We operate within something analogous to a constitution (our policies that define "encyclopedic" and circumscribe actions), but, within that, we look for the most volunteer-friendly option that serves our real purpose, which is to provide useful information in the best way to our readers.  Geogre 15:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me clarify: That particular short passage doesn't say much, and it speaks of the government of Wikipedia, that Wikipedia is not A Democracy. That's different from saying that Wikipedia is not democratic.  I think Wikipedia is a democracy, within limits, but it is not always a democracy, always not one, always anything.  We should be a democracy in the sense that we are government by and for the governed, with no inherent unequal rights.  In the same way, an ideal socialist state would be a democracy.  Geogre 21:37, 17 November 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?
 * No, I do not believe it should. This is not because arbitrators are not wise with experience and insightful about policy, but because policy was formerly developed by plebiscite and has not yet changed.  I absolutely share the frustration anyone may feel or voice about the difficulty of adapting or adopting policies.  We are now so large that it is virtually impossible to get true consensus on any policy.  Between those who misread the arguments, those infringed by the new policies, and those who grow frustrated during the debates, there is going to be significant dissent from practically anything.  That means that we need to reform our policy process, but it doesn't mean that we accomplish this by falling upon ArbCom.  ArbCom is a dispute resolution body.  The paralysis of policy does argue for the establishment of an echelon of decision makers, perhaps, but it can argue other ways, too.  For example, should we rethink the meaning of consensus in policy debates?  Should we rethink our allowance of alternate accounts to better preserve voting tallies?  Should we rethink franchise in policy debate?  Should we consider (my favorite) establishing quorum for policy motions?  Should we have upper end cut-offs for either time or voting?  Should we limit debate formats?  There are many potential solutions, but they are generally going to have to come from a place beyond mere ArbCom, if they are to be top-down, or from a wider venue than ArbCom, if they are to be consensual.  I will avoid, however, commenting on the specific case.  First, I have not watched it from the beginning, and, second, I am not on ArbCom.  Geogre 16:39, 7 November 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?
 * Indeed, I was a participant in that one. I was very clear in my view there: the bureaucrats cannot ignore or overturn consensus in such cases.  I have said this a number of ways in a number of places, but the simplest way may be this: the position of administrator is by definition a "trusted member of the community."  No one can tell the community who it trusts, because trust is given, not taken.  There is no possible room for "discretion" after legitimate accounts are tallied in such instances.  I have believed and campaigned for more instances of temporary demotion of administrators than blocks and bans, as I think a demotion merely prevents future instances of bad behavior while a block means disgrace and robbing the project of a person's good offices, so the ultimate conclusion of the case was satisfactory, if by no means pleasing.  The argument for discretion has been based on analogy, I believe, with AfD, where administrators determine consensus within their discretion.  Since an incorrectly deleted or undeleted article can be remedied, there is always the possibility for review by others and reversal.  Such is not the case with promotion and demotion of administrators.  Finally, I also thought that the matter of "discretion" had been conducted by a small group lobbied by a small group, away from any input by the wider community.  That sanitary cordon was truly objectionable to me.  My first and last impulse on serious actions is confer.  If the group comes up with the wrong conclusion, abide by it.  There is no way that any of us is above another, no way that a bureaucrat is above an administrator: it is a job, not a laurel.  Geogre 16:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) [Apologies: I accidentally cut this question. It was on how ArbCom has ruled that people who have made strong contributions can be more leniently treated than those whose sole contributions have been bad and whether or not I agreed.]
 * Prior actions are always a consideration, as they establish likely future actions, testify to character, and argue intent. Even if I were to disagree with the practice, I would be a hypocrite, because it is a basic part of functioning in the world to see actions in context.  So, if a person's general contributions show good character and a commitment to the project, then a mistake is a mistake.  If a person's whole career is destructive, that argues that the person's desires are destructive.  Geogre 19:26, 7 November 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 reject the premise that there are better and worse contributions, even if I think that there are more and less necessary contributions. The Giano case had a much more serious issue in it than merely that.  Neither Giano nor I, nor any of the other "article people," would denigrate the contributions of programmers: each contributes according to his or her skill and interest.  However, each contribution type has with it an attendant area of expertise.  Who is better at determining whether cross namespace redirects are appropriate: me or someone who works with servers?  Who is better at determining whether a person's constant habit of "alphabetizing" serial items in an article is designed to provoke or a legitimate edit: me or someone who works with servers?  In fact, I think that Wikipedia's size is such that we are developing "republics" within the democracy.  We have WikiProject X, and we get the SpecialUser noticeboards, and we get various portals and the like.  In other words, we are developing our own peer-determined sets of experts and peer-determined rule sets.  Where the real violence comes is when someone is operating out of his or her expertise and when someone denigrates another person's area of expertise.
 * On the other hand, there are "inside the covers" and "outside the covers" contributions. Article authors are working inside the covers of the book, and developers and template/box people are working outside the covers.  They are looking out for the way the book functions, the way the book looks, but not what's in the book.  Who is more important, the author or the publisher?  It depends on what you want, but they are mutually dependent.  There are tens of thousands of skilled programmers with time to spare and thousands of skilled authors with time to spare.  The two camps are equally replaceable and irreplaceable.  I personally feel that template and box work is the least important because least necessary to either content or function of the Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that it's unimportant or ignorable.
 * My personal view is that we should value our leaders in their various skill sets. One reason I think I might work out well for ArbCom is that it is an empire of words and reading, and I think I have those skills.  I have been frustrated, and was frustrated in the Giano case, by the implication that authors are a dime a dozen that came from some current members of ArbCom, but what really struck me is that the same personality traits and skills that make a person excellent at a certain task might make him or her weak at another, and the skill of categorizing and vandal fighting, for example, might translate as a weakness at conflict resolution or living with the ambiguities of people of good will in powerful disagreements. Geogre 19:26, 7 November 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 again disagree with the question and its implicit conclusions. I have disagreed with the outcomes of several ArbCom decisions, but quiescence about it is not the same thing as a rubber stamp.  I disagreed with the Giano decision because several key points of logic were left uncovered.  If people are going to look at past ArbCom decisions to make proscriptive or preventative actions, then the principles have to be very, very clear.  (BTW, you have linked to the Giano case yourself, so I hope I'm forgiven for not digging that one up.)  I hope folks have time, because my "why" is lengthy:
 * The central issue of re-RFA could be dealt with by acceding to bureaucrat "discretion," by demoting Carnildo pending a successful RFA, or by modifying the prior demotion to have it time out (thereby mooting it). Although the last was proposed, it did not pass.  The end result was almost "let's not talk about it."  That was, I felt, insufficient.
 * The other issues involved were acute: can persons associated with ArbCom badger the rest of users and imply threats? Kelly Martin gave up her rights, and the decision carried with it a conclusion that she had done so under a cloud, but it never ruled on the issue of whether any member of ArbCom (or ex-member, in her case) could feign disclosure of the mailing list's contents to try to silence controversy over another associated user's (Tony Sidaway's) actions.
 * Another critical issue was whether there is any such thing as a "cooling off" block and whether or not blocking someone "to cool off" was a violation of the blocking policy. This was simply not addressed, even though it is part of what got Tony Sidaway blocked in the first place.
 * Yet another issue was the blocking Tony Sidaway had done for "civility" and "NPA": this was an opportunity to clarify the blocking policy and to iron out the plausibility or impossibility of blocking someone for a dirty word.
 * Most of all, I was disturbed that Fred Bauder wrote the decision proposal and introduced elements that had nowhere been argued in Evidence or the Workshop to the decision. A judge does not produce evidence and cannot conclude on a case not made, in my opinion, as that makes him an advocate rather than arbiter.
 * I was also displeased with the final version of the user:Eternal Equinox decision (Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox. Evidence had been presented of a very long and persistent habit of that user demanding attention by picking at other users.  Like a low-grade fever, he continued to want to belabor editors he disagreed with.  In the process of the arguments, Giano made colorful insults.  The proposed decision wanted to sanction Giano for those and offered no injunction on Eternal Equinox.  The final verdict gave parole to a user who had already had a full year of consistently problematic behavior.
 * In several cases, users in the docket at ArbCom have said that they were quitting. They would blank their pages and cease editing for a while.  That has convinced the arbitrators to stop the proceedings.  Their reasoning is sound, and the demands of the job are taxing enough without arbitrating ghosts, but some of these cases have involved issues that should be interpreted.  If nothing else, some of these "departed" users have lingered under new names, some have come back as soon as the heat was off, and some have only been gone for a week or so.  As onerous as it is, and as seemingly cruel, we have to consider the issues that need interpretation and not the personalities or persons. Geogre 19:26, 7 November 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?
 * It is the primary reason I am running. It is not that I plan to get there first or anything of the sort.  Fred does very valuable work, but I have seen too many cases where arbitrators are not adding remedies or findings that they believe in because the debate has been shaped by Fred's proposal.  No one person should be shaping the debates in such a manner.  There is no Chief Justice of ArbCom.  This is not a knock on Fred, even if I have profound disagreements with some of the things he has done, but simply a matter of how entirely dependent the arguments can be on that first formulation of principles.  Geogre 19:26, 7 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? AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not have a particular problem with it, although I cannot imagine that it is likely soon. The most important factor for my consideration of an arbitrator is familiarity with Wikipedia and its policies, and that takes time, time, time.  It is more than possible for some of our 12,000 edit editors out there to make great arbitrators, but the other part of the equation is interest in helping out on the dispute resolution front.  Most people who have that desire will have had an interest in RFA.  So, if someone has a great deal of time on the project and a strong interest in dispute resolution, it is almost a sure bet that he or she will have become an administrator before an arbitrator.  It's always possible for there to be exceptions, but it would be a really exceptional exception, in my view.  Now I hope I can pass the Bridge of Death.  Geogre 19:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes. No, wait, no! Aaaargh....! Unlike the above, which I ask of everyone, these next are more specific to your case. I see in your statement, you refer us to User:Geogre/AfD. While that article says it is old, it does not explicitly say that it is no longer applicable - is it? In other words, do you still believe, just for one example, "AfD is for votes, not proof"?
 * I do, in spirit, although, to be fair, you should read all of it rather than just the intentionally provocative headline. N.b. I am not saying "not for discussion," and it is old.  I should change it with a headnote so people know that it was VfD, not AfD, and it reflected the years when we voted.  The general argument is that people should not use AfD to try to fight, to interline claim and counter claim, that a person should read, consider, express, not fight.  If I were writing it now, I'd get rid of "vote" language and point out that the main idea there is not to get into tit-for-tat-for-tit-for-tatty horror movies.  People should consider with reference to the deletion guideline, not other people.  Geogre 21:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I will strive to clarify by a headnote rather than a change of body text how this bit of my philosophy is or is not still applicable. Geogre 21:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) In the RFAR/Giano, Fred Bauder proposed a rather ... notable ... sanction of you, personally. When elected, how will that affect your relations with him on the Arbcom? AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't have any real effect. Fred and I had disagreed before that, and I do have a different set of views from him.  However, I really don't believe in personalities.  You'll have to believe me or not, but I genuinely don't care much about the "people" here (quotes because "we" are not people, but personae, because "we" are constructs of our words).  However Fred may feel about me, and I honestly don't know, I don't have any hard feelings toward him.  I obviously thought he was in error, and I probably didn't keep the sneer entirely away from my lips when I typed some of the time, but I fully expect to be disagreed with, to be corrected, to be taught, to teach, and to convince.  My exasperation was that Fred's proposed decision wasn't connected in any way that he explained with the evidence and workshop pages, and my most vigorous disagreement was his interpretation of a segment of a policy.  I make a big distinction between feeling that a person's actions or behavior in a case were wrong and thinking that a person was wrong.  It's like the AfD stuff: the presence or absence of an article has nothing to do with the value of the subject of the article, and Fred's feelings about me have nothing to do with me as a person, and therefore, as a corrollary, my view of his words or deeds have nothing to do with my view of him as a person.  I wasn't personally offended.  Geogre 21:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, heck, as long as I'm here on stage, I might as well share something I've been thinking about lately, as it might explain my ability to work with Fred or not. It seems to me that, along with the general Big Endians and Little Endians, we have a kind of division between the Thick Skinners and Thin Skinners: the people who believe that folks should not be blocked for NPA and people who think they should.  I'm a Thick Skinner (and thick sinner): I don't think that a mean word here or there is going to be better or worse if it has five letters instead of four, and I don't think that anyone should be explaining bad behavior with the excuse of "He was mean to me."  Fred was mean to me, I guess.  I was pretty ticked off by his reasoning, but that's about it.  It doesn't apply now.  ArbCom currently has people who disagree with each other at least as much as Fred and I do.  Geogre 21:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * YAA (yet another addendum): My disagreement and frustration with Fred was that the proposed decision would seem to be unconnected, and then, when asked to explain where it came from, he would say, "the evidence." That was inflammatory, when there were three /Workshop pages, each over 100Kb, an /Evidence page that was about that large, a talk page to the /Proposed decision that should have been split into three, and yet the proposed decision didn't seem connected and no one could get the sole author to explain, at least in public.  That leads to either thinking that there was an explanation that the parties didn't get to see or that there wasn't an explanation, so it's natural that people got put out.  That's also what I mean about "why I'm running": I felt that the parties really needed calm explanation, esp. if the proposed decision was under significant clouds of confusion.  I may write too long, but there are times when that's better than not communicating.  Geogre 11:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Newyorkbrad
These are the standard questions I've been posing to all the candidates, so I will add them here as well, but if the answers would duplicate responses already given above feel free just to cross-reference. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 23:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) What can be done to reduce the delays in the arbitration process?
 * 1) Add staffing. 2) Reject cases that do not have focus.  3) Keep to the focus as much as possible.  4) Draft findings as quickly as possible after evidence is in, preferrably with plenty of warning.  Geogre 01:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you anticipate participating in actually writing the ArbCom decision? If so, do you have any writing experience germane to this particular type of drafting?
 * I do intend to, yes. I'm not sure how anyone can have experience, quite, as the closest analogy is experience with the legal profession.  I have no experience there except as a witness.  (I seem to see a lot of things.)  I have as much other experience as one might have, having been involved in multiple policy drafts, policy debates, and various deliberative venues within Wikipedia.  Outside of Wikipedia, I have experience of the usual sort -- drawing up charters of organizations, professional editing, that kind of thing.  We are the amateur experts, so I have as much expertise as a professional amateur could have here.  Geogre 01:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Robth

 * 1) I've gotten the impression, and I believe you have stated, that you are more of a "big narrative" person than a grind-through-the-diffs-to-get-the-picky-details-exactly-right person. Given that getting the picky details just right is an important part of examining a case, are you confident that you have a skillset well suited for arbcom (or would you disagree that the previous statement is a given)?  To put it another way: your candidacy is clearly based in large part on your philosophical views regarding how arbcom should act and what it should be; can you explain why you would be a good person to have doing the day-to-day work? --RobthTalk 06:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have been a big narrative person because I have had that luxury. It is absolutely not the right way for a member of ArbCom to be, and therefore I have passed up several elections.  I would not stand now if I were not prepared to be as much of a diff-digger as possible and as much of a particular narrative as possible.
 * I think the impression that I am here for philosophical reasons is derived from these questions, which can only be answered in sweeping panoramas. If I were to answer too specifically, I would risk either drumming up dissent with an ongoing or past decision, and if I were to speak of persons here or there who have been too well or poorly treated, I would be introducing personalities.  However, arbitration isn't for correcting people, and blaming isn't a part of its function, either: it is about resolving (not punishing) disputes.
 * The arbitrators themselves are not diff-diggers. Diffs come from the /Evidence and /Workshop pages, and arbitrators do not need to, and I think should not, be advocates or prosecutors.  I hope no one has ever gotten the impression that I don't read diffs offered in evidence!  If an emergency behavior is present where the presented case is such a shambles that the real issue isn't presented, then the answer is simple: recuse and become a party and present information.
 * In my own mind, standing means committing to becoming much more of an investigator and particularist than I have been in the past, and I would not stand if I were not prepared to do so. Geogre 10:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Samir

 * 1) Why should administrators take an active role in editing articles? -- Samir धर्म 06:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Everyone should take an active role in editing articles, as we are here because this is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit," so "edit" should be part of what draws us.
 * I assume you're posing a form of the editor/manager debate? If one's skills and interests are in editing, then one should edit, and if one's skills and interests are in hackers and protection, then one should vandal hunt.  However, I do believe that anyone who does only one thing is in no position to exert influence over the others.  If I were only writing and editing, then I would have little stature at AN/I.  Each of us should do as much as we can, and none of us should approach Wikipedia as a series of chutes into which we go to show our powers if we are administrators.  To be in a position of trust by the community, we should be in the community, and not merely police or architects.
 * The ultimate encyclopedia is inside the covers. Writing and adding drew most of us, and abandoning that because of a perception that there is such a need to stop the ceiling cat vandal or to make a -bot to stop the ceiling cat vandal is to voluntarily withdraw from the largest part of the project.  Needs must be met, but need cannot be the whole of an argument.
 * Every bit of the project you have nothing to do with is a bit of the project you lose expertise on, and therefore you lose effectiveness as an arbiter or advocate. Geogre 10:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Question(s) from maclean
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? ·maclean 00:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No. I have worked with people to try to defuse situations, of course, but I have been very active throughout Wikipedia without being active there.  My interest is in the interpretation of policy violations, and I'm not sure that I would be the best person to work in detail with upset editors.  The tasks of ArbCom are different from those of mediation.  I applaud and stand in awe of all who have the patience and skills necessary to mediate, and I could wish that all of those who volunteer possessed them in equal measure, but I would not be performing to my strengths there.  Geogre 02:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hypothetical from John Reid

 * Content dispute on Article X. Editor A ignites war with rude comment on User talk:B. New editor B sees this and reacts but A sneaky reverts himself before anybody else notices the instigation. Rude comments on Talk:X. Rude comments between Editors A and B on each other's talk. Admin C blocks A and B for a day. 12 hours later, Admin D sees the sneaky revert and unblocks B and, for good measure, extends A's block to 2 days. Admin C sees the unblock, doesn't understand/agree with the block sum, reblocks B and extends his block to match A's. He comments in good faith on User talk:D.


 * Admin D sees the reblock and reads the comment that reveals C's ignorance, reunblocks B, and leaves message on AN, explaining the sneaky revert. C reblocks again, leaves message on User talk:D complaining of 0WW violation. D replies on User talk:C, explains the sneaky revert, and unblocks both parties. Admin E (up to now uninvolved, stay with me here) comes to User talk:B to follow up on unrelated Article Y discussion; sees B complaining mightily but incoherently about being blocked. E reads through talk on X, A, and B and sees a lot of rudeness, blocks both editors for a day.


 * Editors M, N, P, and Q, friends or partisans of A and B, object loudly on talk to every turn of events; C blocks some of them, D blocks others. Meanwhile, C and D are trading insults on talk and Admin F finally steps in and blocks them for a week. Admin G unblocks everybody. Admin H discusses the situation offwiki with Admins J and K; H posts to AN with the stated intent to block all involved parties for 24 hours for violations of CIVIL and NPA. J and K endorse; H implements the blocks, which expire a day later. The case winds up at ArbCom.


 * I've already written my answer in detail, encrypted it, and uploaded it to a userpage. I'll give you a week to think about this case before revealing my solutions. 08:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a hypothetical? Sounds like what goes on here every week!
 * The sad thing is that I think it shows a few things. First, it shows this new mental disability that Wikipedia and the Internet in general has created, and that's the ability to write without the ability to read. If any of those people (past B) had read and understood or been slow about it, the escalation would have stopped.
 * Of course, what's happening on a more practical level is that WP:NPA is being used as a weapon again. B and A were counting on NPA, and all the admins involved were reflexively acting on NPA, and because of that no one is giving anyone a breath of air, no one is shrugging anything off.  It's only because of the misconception that "rude speech = block" that anyone can act so much like tattling kindergarteners and only because of that that "he did it first" comes into play at all.
 * Additionally, though, people are acting as if the default status is "blocked." The default status for all of us is unblocked.  If there is doubt, go back to the default.  If time has passed, go back to the default.  Blocks are for repeated actions and not for landmines.  If these people are really unfit for a cooperative editing environment, then they're going to do it again, and they're going to create a trail of frustrated people, and that's when we have to act.  If there is a single bad exchange, then people need to go on or step away for a couple of days.  Insults can turn funny, if you give them time.
 * The other thing is that mediation was the answer from the start. The first administrator to get involved should have warned and invited the parties to work out their differences.  This is about a cooperative editing environment, and cooperation is multivocal.  If the admin who did the block couldn't stand to listen to the complaints and find a middle ground, then he or she needed to refer them to the projects that volunteer to do that.
 * As for whose fault all of it is, it is irrelevant. We are not interested in punishing the guilty.  We are interested in maintaining a working environment.  Geogre 12:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, and for general readers who think that I didn't go through the algebra of all of that, above, on the GRE logic test, where they do that kind of "you have two barrels of pickles, one of relish, and one of apple sauce, but the applesauce must not touch the relish, and the relish has to be beside the pickles, while the pickles can only touch pickles or relish" test, I made 97th percentile, but it's the morning, Sunday, and the blame is not the point. Geogre 12:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Ragesoss
In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?
 * That sounds like an awfully particular debate. A neutral point of view is supposed to be non-valuative from the authors.  It refers to reporting rather than judging.  At the same time, we as encyclopedists owe our readers the benefits of our brains and our judgments as researchers.  After all, we are not a Google clipping service.  Therefore, it is up to us to draw conclusions that are supported by the evidence presented in the text.  "Scientific" is often used very imprecisely to refer to what amounts to the empiricist tradition coupled with a Baconian method.  This method is what we call "science."  There have always been other methods and modes that people have employed, but the empiricist method has proven itself superior in physical endeavors.  A scientific point of view is not neutral or biased: it is a methodology rather than a world view.  Scientism is a world view.  (I.e. empiricism cannot prove nor disprove the existence of fairies, and so "science" says, "There is no evidence for fairies."  Scientism asserts that the empiricist epistemology coupled with a Baconian method is the only valid form of knowledge and says that, because fairies cannot be submitted to such analysis, they cannot exist.)  Therefore, a thing can be NPOV (non-valuative) and scientific or non-scientific.  An article on the beliefs of cargo cults is going to employ a Baconian method to describe beliefs, and it should avoid judging the tribespeople who believe that airplanes are gods.  Geogre 03:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note on these sorts of arguments: It seems to me that "NPOV" debates break out most often when there are multiple points of view that are represented in secondary literature, as well as when various forms of secondary literature represent minority points of view.  When these clashes occur, we have to introduce a standard that isn't spelled out in our criteria: how to determine "reliable" sources, how to report majority points of view without dismissing minority points of view, and how to navigate battling experts representing different ethnic or nationalist points of view.  One can write up a narrative of Battle of Shiloh and call it a great victory or great loss, a huge mistake or a coincidence.  What we have to do is keep in mind our readers over our authors.  How are they served best?  Do we serve them best by giving equal space to every theory and every interpretation?  Do we serve them best by taking a stand on whether the battle was a win or loss?  Do we give as much space to the idea that the battle was won or lost by the presence of boats as darkness falling when it did?  Do we select Bedford Forrest to follow?  It is my view that our selection point of view reflect the prevalence of secondary interpretations, that our synthesis point of view come only from works established in the article, that our exclusion point of view come from those works that are flatly in opposition to the other sources of the article only, and that we otherwise at least give a subordinate clause to alternate points of view.  "Although the battle was seen as a great victory by the Union press, contemporary historians regard the overall battle as a pyrrhic victory at best" would do it.  The same would apply to non-scientific sources that are rejected by contemporary scientists, "Although some people believe that Alex Chiu's rings will give eternal life, the overwhelming majority of medical and scientific opinion is against such a surmise."  Geogre 15:34, 11 November 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?


 * It's not the easiest general question to answer, because the previous resignations have little in common. It may appear that hard feelings were the cause, but that, I know, is not the case.  If I felt that I would resign, I would not run.  As I've said, this is at least the third election that has come and gone since I have been an administrator, and I have remained all of this time doing pretty much as I have been doing.  Some of the people who have resigned have felt implicated in the cases they view, and some have been so passionate about their views that they have done things against policy, while most have just gotten burned out.  I have had my own cases of being rude with people and having people be rude to me, but I would like to say that I have never made a campaign nor been campaigned against.  So far, at least, I have also never misused the buttons to express myself on an issue.  I feel very strongly, for example, that simple predicate nominatives are not articles, and therefore any article that says, "South Beaverton School is a school in South Beaverton" is not an article.  When something like that goes through AfD and wins, despite being, in my view, a clear policy violation, I abide by the community. Therefore, I don't expect that I'll fall to one of the first two reasons.  The most common reason, though, burnout, is also something I've considered.  I've gotten burned out by various things, but what I've realized is that there is a period of romance with a task, a period of frustration, and then burnout, but that's not the end of things.  After burnout comes reapproachment, reappraisal, and recommitment, so I think I would not resign over fatigue.  I would, instead, take some time, take a few breaths, go inactive for a time, and then come back.  Geogre 19:10, 11 November 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?


 * That's one of the most critical issues we face, and we face it many times and places. ArbCom is not a content board, and so it does not answer questions about whether X is correct.  Instead, we have to look at the methods of discussion and decision at an article.  We cannot say, "Bob is correct and wins the prize, but Jane is wrong and must let Bob have his way."  Instead, we say, "Bob may be right or wrong, but he was trying to monopolize the article and calling names and preventing all attempts at negotiation and mollification."  However, in general, we have to remain amateur and risk being non-definitive.  Again, in general, experts demonstrate expertise rather than assert it.  Also, we have to realize that there is no right version.  If Bob silences Jane, then that's only temporary, because some day Jimmy will show up and mess everything up again.  We all write upon water, and we can attempt to make things accurate and verifiable.  However, I have recently watched my pretty boring work at Eliza Haywood get a feminist overlay.  I have all sorts of arguments against that stuff.  I have so many smirks and sneers to throw at that approach that you wouldn't believe it.  It is, however, valid, even if I think it is wrong, and it is cited, even if I think the citations are to some very weak critics, so I say not a word.  It is not my article, and the changes do not make it incorrect.  Of all the people using Wikipedia, perhaps no more than four or five could have the interest and background to weigh the various arguments, so I see no reason to try to play battling experts.  Geogre 19:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Giano
What is your view on the IRC Admin Channel. What subjects do you, and would you if elected, see fit to discuss on the IRC Admin channel? Why would you not discuss the same subjects On-Wiki. Giano 18:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC
 * I'm no fan, as you know. The problems that came up earlier had to do with yet another IRC channel, but I'm no particular fan of IRC in any form or fashion.  Personally, I'd be loathe to use it.  The mailing list is plenty, frankly.  If a person is online, she or he can read the mailing list.  If a person is not online, then there is absolutely no use that I can think of for there to be chat that cannot be tracked.  Emergency situations and ArbCom are somewhat antonyms.  I cannot foresee much advantage to untraceable, transient words.  If there is a fire that needs to be put out, then write it up on the mailing list, where there is some verification that you said what you said.  If you tell me that X is doing all sorts of horrible things and has found the exploit that will crash Wikipedia, then I want that to be in a form where I can refer to it and re-read it.  Chat and serious business do not go together.
 * I also think we really need to settle the matter of what to do with these off-wiki Wikipedia creatures. When one person said, quite earnestly, that she didn't understand why all business wasn't conducted on IRC, because then no one can accuse you of being uncivil, I was flabbergasted.  It's nice to chat inanely with other Wikipedians, and I'm a champ at inane banter.  It's nice to have emergency calls for action, when there are emergencies.  Neither of those is particularly fitting for ArbCom.
 * The admins-only IRC channel bothers me much more, as that's where I have actually seen people saying things, actually planning things, for driving others away from Wikipedia, abusively blocking, etc., and yet none of that can be submitted as evidence. Becoming queen of the IRC or king of chat seems like a very shabby sort of accomplishment to me.  It also seems like the final triumph of the Friendster part of Wikipedia over the encyclopedia part.  Aside from all of that, though, my own feeling is that an ArbCom IRC channel is not one I'll be spending much time with.  If I ever were to have to use such a thing, I might well express the rough drafts of my ideas and look for refinement through debate.  I'd rather do that on a mailing list, though, where I get more than
 * one half line
 * of text at a
 * time to say something
 * which might have some
 * nuance to it
 * and which I might well wish that others would think about somewhat. If I am having to refine my thoughts, I would also like to be able to read and re-read another's comments.  It's already non-evidentiary on the mailing list.  IRC is overkill.  I am seeking a position on ArbCom to help out, not to hang out.  Geogre 19:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Certified.Gangsta
A current arbitrator, recently wanted you to be desysop in the Giano arbCom case, is there going to be any problem working with this user if you're elected?--Certified.Gangsta 05:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I answered that above, so I'll spare too much detail here, but no. ArbCom members currently debate, propose, and write, but they don't have to be chatting each other up.  I purposely did not join proceedings against that person for other things, and, while I was not pleasant in talking to him, it is simply not something that really can be a problem.  As an arbitrator, one doesn't have a way to "get" another arbcom member, unless you yourself violate WP:POINT, and that's something I have not done in the past and won't do in the future.  Geogre 11:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Question(s) from Dakota
If elected to the Arbitration Committee will you continue active editing? Will you not lose interest in contributing to articles. Will you be available to any users who seek your help or advice.

-- Dakota 05:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No one can testify to the future, but I don't anticipate it, no. When I became an administrator, my editing increased rather than decreased, although I gradually stopped being an every-single-AfD person.  I do my writing and editing at one time of the day, and I poke around in the controversial areas at another time of the day.  That's how I manage my time on Wikipedia.  If the demands of one or both got to such severity that I felt that I could only serve one master, I would have to assess where I was doing the most good and make a decision.  Because I don't regard joining ArbCom as a promotion, I think I would look at it dispassionately.  So no, I really don't think it will happen.  Geogre 11:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from JzG
Open-mindedness and the ability to revise one's own position in response to new evidence seems to me to be an important factor in considering ArbCom cases. Can you please provide an example of a situation where your initial judgement of a situation turned out to be wrong, and show how you dealt with it? Guy (Help!) 14:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's difficult. I expect to be wrong, and I'm comfortable with being wrong and having to correct my views, but one of the things about my focus on larger structural issues rather than persons is that, although I'm forever saying, "You're right" on things like FAC's, AfD (when I spent time there, but see my advice to voters, where I talk about how happy we should be to rescue an AfD, and there are many examples of my own rescue efforts (my favorite is Film adaptation)), I don't have too many occasions where I am adamant about something and have to be swayed.  I do a good bit of, "I see what you mean, I'll make the change" with articles (very often, indeed), some with deletion arguments, less with vandal fights (as I'm not much of a vandal hunter), and practically none with policy issues.  I will say that I have been proven wrong about the ArbCom clerks.  I still believe that they are a bad idea the way they're currently instituted (not populated, but the way they're self-selected without any public process and without the ability of plaintiffs to ask for recusal, and the summary function remains something I oppose), but they have worked out very well, and I'm delighted to have been wrong about that.  I may think of reversals later and come back with diffs, but none spring to mind, and I don't think it's because of suppression.  Geogre 14:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Sjakkalle
Glad to see you running, and I am looking forward to placing myself in your "support" column. Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I have often seen you argue against blocks made where the sole reason was "personal attacks". Why do you think such blocks are a bad idea, and are there cases where you think a block for such cause is appropriate?
 * Ok, I'll try to answer all this stuff, one piece at a time, but I want to apologize to everyone in advance that I may go long. My biggest problem with NPA that we are creatures of words, here, and when we target the words instead of the intention or consequences, we are really attacking each other in the most whole-bodied approach we can.
 * We never should block for NPA because we never mean "personal attacks" as the reasons. Instead, we mean "disrupting the editing atmosphere of Wikipedia."  We should block for disruption but not for "personal attacks."  If a person is calling names and being nasty, then it's nothing to anyone, unless that prevents people from making progress on the articles.  If that happens, then the infraction is disruption, not "personal attacks."
 * The reason this is a distinction with difference is that the moment we say that "personal attacks" are blocking offenses, we beg the question of who decides when it is an attack as well as who decides that it's personal and when is it bad enough for a block? This is the very same question brought up with "politically correct" speech.  We have to ask whether the listener determines offense, the speaker's intent determines offense, or the audience in general (the community) does.  If I say, "You are a loathesome coprophage," is that better or worse than saying, "Oh, fuck off?"  The first might be a really personal judgment designed to really harm, and the second may even be a joke.  The words themselves cannot carry bans, as the intent and the effect are important.  When some user or other called me all sorts of names on an AfD debate, I just shrugged.  The words were a personal attack, but I was not endangered or concerned.  On the other hand, when user:Ideogram said that I suggested that Kelly Martin be banned, I was extremely angry and offended.  I had spent hours, cumulatively, trying to make a reasoned and calm case.  So I can be offended, irritated, and enraged, just like everyone not trying to pass a Turing Test, but how could I have presented my unconcern with one and concern with the other?  It seems to me that we can never let the recipient determine when something is a personal attack (as we've seen dozens of people call being proven incorrect "personal attacks").  We similarly cannot leave it to the speaker, as no one will admit to intending to hurt someone else's feelings.  We could rely on the community, I suppose, if we had confidence that the community would act according to concrete criteria, but that would be a tremendous bother and a way to multiply dissent rather than decrease it.
 * It's much simpler if we concentrate on whether a person's comments were intended to disrupt the project rather than whether they made Miss Manners cry. Geogre 20:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Same question as above, but this time for blocks where the cause is "egregious incivility" or simply "incivility".
 * I have almost the same answer: It is not ever for incivility that one can be blocked, but for stopping progress on articles and poisoning the atmosphere. I.e. we block for disruption, which is much more concrete and much less dependent upon the emotions of one user vs. another.  Geogre 20:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Arbcom often levies sanctions due to personal attacks, incivility or failure to assume good faith. Do you think the ArbCom's present course here is appropriate, and if not, what direction do you think it ought to take?
 * I can't imagine authoring any such thing. At the same time, telling someone to cool it with the rhetoric is absolutely fine.  I think something like a "two month personal attack probation" is both unworkable and wrongheaded, as it implies that, after those two months, the person can go back to calling other people Zionist pigs or Fascist butchers.  In other words, I agree with establishing that a user has a history of such ill temper as to be unfit for a collaborative writing project, but not for blocking someone for this or that insult.  The issue, seen clearly in the case of user:Prof02 recently, is that some people just aren't right for a cooperative editing environment.  They may write well, might have good things to say, but they just can't work with others.  We need to assess that, and it's entirely fair game to be giving injunctions on that basis.  Geogre 20:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The term "wheel-warring" is a bit contentious, with some viewing a single reversal of an admin action as starting a wheel war, while some others argue that repetition is the key. See for instance Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Proposed decision. Under what circumstances, if any, do you think an administrator is justified in reversing another admin's action without discussion? (Excepting some policy sanctioned reversals such as undeleting a WP:PRODded article.)
 * Your critical phrase is "without discussion." If there is already a consensus from a community that a particular person is too close to a subject or is going against policy, then reversing (pending resolution by another means only) makes sense, but I don't agree with anyone reversing another without discussion.  The discussion should always, always take place, and reversing someone is only a stop-gap until a resolution is obtained by RfC or RFAR or mediation.  This can get complicated when we're dealing with "wrong version" reverts and the like, but we should be striving to leave things with a status quo that conforms to policy.
 * I have a confession here, as I did get into a wheel war once. Tony Sidaway and I went round and round with Warren Benbow.  It had been deleted by AfD, and Tony said that it never should have been deleted and so undeleted it.  I told him that he had to use what was WP:DRV, and he said that administrators don't need things like that.  Administrators, he maintained, could undelete anything that "shouldn't" have been deleted.  He rewrote the article, and the finished version was very nice, but he had been warring with me, essentially, over preserving the single edit by an IP editor that had been empty.  I couldn't understand why it was worth going to war to honor an IP editor who couldn't manage an entire sentence, when what Tony was going to do was, effectively, write an article from scratch.  That kind of thing was worth pursuing for me solely because I did not feel that administrators have the right in any way to ignore the processes that everyone else has to use.  Geogre 20:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) You said higher up that you have issues with WP:IAR. Is your issue with the policy itself, or simply with how it is being interpreted by some people? Would a clarification of what IAR does not mean make the policy more tolerable?
 * The real problem is with Wikipedia users who use the names of articles rather than the words of them. I don't know how we're going to correct that.  We'd need to rename the policy, and it would be fine.  Call it Respond appropriately, and it'll be fine.  This is also something (maybe I'm the only one who gets this) bugging me about Discuss, don't vote.  What it says is what I've said, and I agree with it, but what's going to happen (what is already happening) is that people are going to shout "don't vote! don't vote! it's up to the administrator's judgment alone!"  That's not what it says, and it's not what it means, but the title will be shot like an elephant gun.  Names are important as long as Wikipedians are partly lazy about reading policy.  Geogre 20:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) It is often said that "Wikipedia is not a democracy", yet Wikipedia has a number of quasi-democratic processes such as RFA, AFD and DRV, where people highlight what they think should be done ("keep", "support", "oppose") Do you believe the "vote count" in such processes ought to have a big, if not absolute, say in determining the outcome of such processes?
 * You know, it used to be that we did vote. We used to actually have straw polls, and we did used to count majorities.  The simplest version of my feeling is that any government without the consent of the governed is the shadow of tyranny.  How do we know consent?  Well, we either go with preponderance or super majority or majority, but we should never be telling the people of Wikipedia that they are servants or lessers.  At the same time, as in constitutional democracies, we have core principles and policies that cannot be easily changed.  Any time there is no harm in majority, it ought to be majority, as long as it is within the confines of our policy.  Geogre 20:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Related to the above, do you think the entire concept of "ArbCom election" runs counter to "Wikipedia is not a democracy"?
 * Indeed, I think that the ArbCom elections are vital, and I would rather they be pure elections with no selection. Why?  Well, arbitrators, like administrators, are trusted by the community as persons who know the policies and how to apply them.  You can never tell people who they trust.  Only the community can tell the community who it trusts, and you can never tell them that a personal friend is their favorite.  I think Wikipedia is a democracy, partly, just as all constitutional democracies are.  Geogre 20:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * An addendum: (Yeah, I know, no one wants to see an addendum) One of the other problems with NPA is that people go about treating it as if blocking for it is policy.  It is not.  NPA is a policy that says what is obvious: we should not insult one another.  It says that being abusive could lead to a block.  However, per my above concern with IAR, people use the name rather than the content and go about treating it as if it were a universal law that people are blocked for being insulting.
 * Well, that makes WP:NPA the malleus maleficarum of Wikipedia. It seemingly licenses witch hunts.  Matthew Hopkins, the "witch finder general," used to stick women with pins.  If they had any numb spots, he took it as a sign that they were in congress with the devil.  Well, people are now going about and baiting and taunting and provoking suspected people to get them to make an oath so that they can be blocked!  On some articles, the actual disruption has occurred because of NPA and not because of the attacks.  People are there accusing each other of PA non-stop and crying out for admins to block, and, to the shame of the project, in some of those cases admins themselves are cudgelling people with threats of blocks for NPA for disagreement.
 * To me, this is always, always about whether or not the person can edit cooperatively, if the person can relax their fingers from around the throat of truth, can recognize the value of others or at least their own shortcomings. The people who wish to silence others are attacking Wikipedia, because all we are is words.  All we are is a never-ending quest to improve.  It's true that we no longer have the gaps we once did, no longer have the hideous errors we once did, that improving is moving from primarily substantive to primarily cosmetic, but there is always more to say, always better ways to say it, and any time our editors or administrators throw their personal feelings at other editors or administrators to try to stifle them, they are demonstrating an inappropriate behavior for Wikipedia.  Geogre 02:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

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?

2) If a decision of yours, while technically a correct one, would knowingly be unpopular en masse, how would you present your decision?

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

Hmmm, I may have to reject some of the premises, but here goes.
 * 1) I'm not sure whether you mean that the disputants have simply misjudged a situation or where I had or where ArbCom had in its agreed upon solution. I fully expect mistakes: we are not Adamic man and are all heir to mistakes.  The question is less whether a mistake has been made than how people react to their mistakes.  If they take it in stride or try to clarify what had prompted the mistake and concentrate upon what can be fixed, then that's great behavior.  If they feel cornered and begin lashing out, that's not appropriate for Wikipedia.  I make mistakes quite often.  I spend time at the Humanities reference desk from time to time, and I make all sorts of small mistakes.  Above, I had "malleus malefactorum."  When someone corrected me, I joked and said men are a lot more wicked than women (i.e. I had gone with a butchered Latin masculine noun instead of the proper feminine of "malifacarum").  If it's ArbCom, that's slightly different.  If a decision is made, agreed upon by several of the arbitrators, and that is mistake, then the fault, such as one may exist, lies with the parties who didn't explain themselves or present apt information in their evidence.  If several vote to accept a solution, then it's not just one person's mistake.  (If a single student writes a paper on the wrong topic, it's her fault.  If half the class does, it's the teacher's fault.)
 * 2) Discuss, discuss, discuss. It's true that correct decisions can be unpopular, but that's why we need articulate folks on ArbCom who will communicate clearly with the community.  It's possible to make it quite clear that the decision isn't going to be reversed, to explain why it must take place, and yet explain how it is better for all (which it would have to be to be correct).  At the same time, if it is very unpopular, that means that there is a large group that would be desirous of changing the policies or guidelines, and I would encourage folks to go through the steps necessary for doing so.  Sometimes we just have to lump it, like I have to do with high school articles, but it's never a win for one side or another.
 * 3) I'm afraid that I can't answer your third question, because I don't really look with a checklist filter. I'm not trying to evade, but I really don't think in those terms.  If I'm looking to keep/delete, then the first thing I want is for the article to provide significance to its subject.  Next, I want the article to provide a context for the subject (as encyclopedias add contexts for terms, while dictionaries limit contexts).  These two things are primary jobs of the author.  If there are irrelevant biographical details in a generally ok structure, we can edit them.  If there are scandalous, salacious, and libellous statements, then those negate the entire article because of the legal exposure of Wikipedia and the unnecessary harm.  The sourcing of the article can always be improved, if the article can be verified, but it has to be verifiable so that we can help, so that we can improve the article.  As I said above, we are a never-ending quest to improve, and any article on something that cannot be verified cannot be improved and therefore should not be on Wikipedia.  All of the "NOT" things should be obvious and logical derivatives from "encyclopedia," but those come into play on AfD rather than on a first read of an article.  Most of the NOT parts have to be defined because they represent the seven deadly sins of cooperative editing: the temptations that all public websites suffer -- to get too granular, to get too fannish, to get too nationalistic/chauvanistic, and to be taken over by commerce and/or narrow interest groups.    Geogre 10:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Sugaar
How would you deal with abuse of authority by administrators, meaning by this application of blocks as punitive measures and use of blocks in unclear PA cases, as per WP:BLOCK. Would you protect the sysop no matter what or would you defend policy above all? In other words, what do you consider more important: strict discipline or strict application of policy? Thanks.
 * Policy, of course, unless the policy situation isn't clear. I have been the "no divine right of admins" person for a long time now, because administrators are trusted by the community, and therefore they should be quite careful.  On the other hand, most of the people who are "abusively" blocked by administrators do deserve a block, though almost never for something silly like NPA.  If administrators consult, if they use WP:AN/I and the vandalism intervention pages, then actual abuse will be very unlikely.  At the same time, everyone claims "admin abuse."  The charge is no more valid than calling someone a troll: these are just overused terms that signify the emotional state of the speaker more than the actions of the referrent.  Geogre 19:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well they do happen - that's why I asked. My case is currently in ANI (section "Unjust block") but, despite the obviousness of it no admin is intervening, just saying: "drop it". I just had one warn, had ammended my behaviour, the article dispute was extremely hot and the alleged PAs are more than dubious (mere irony). Besides, I have a very clean historial of 2 years. Thanks for your reply anyhow. --Sugaar 20:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That gets to another side. Let's suppose that you were incorrectly blocked.  The block, let's suppose, was for 24 hours.  After serving the block, you feel pretty aggrieved (and who wouldn't?), and you post about it on AN/I.  The problem is that there is nothing that anyone can do to undo the past.  They can agree with you, can say that they agree that the grounds were shaky, but no one is going to be able to get justice.  NPA blocks almost never cool anyone off.  Let's suppose that the case against your block is crystal clear, completely wrong, there isn't much that should be done, unless the administrator is engaged in a pattern.  The disruption gets worse if you want a pound of flesh, but you should clearly and, as calmly as possible, document what happened for yourself.
 * The administrator could have misread it, or he could have been malicious. In both cases the cure is consultation.  Whenever an administrator goes off alone and blocks, he multiplies the chances of making a mistake.  I wish there were a buddy system for blocks, at least -- that no one could perform a block without a second person turning a key, too, like an ICBM silo.  Geogre 20:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if the block can be appealed, at least the log of the block could be deleted and maybe the sysop scolded (personally I requested her recusal in future cases regarding my person or the disputed article, to which her intervention has done much damage). A block is a very negative mark in one's reputation, according to the policy it can only be used in extreme cases. If I get in another trouble in the future, for whatever reason, admins will know I have been already "convicted", no matter that "conviction" was done without any guarantees, and they will act in consequence. I want to clean my historial and someone must be able to do it.
 * I am not worried about the block itself but about the negative impact in my reputation (plus side effects in displacing editors out of a disputed article). If a single previous warning was enough to justify this block, a single previous block may be sufficient to justify a ban, who knows? (Maybe you prefer to reply in my talk page, as this is not directly related to elections. Tahnks for your comments anyhow. --Sugaar 22:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

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 23:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No. I'm not interesting or interested in interest about me.  I'm very, very boring, and no good can come of my identity being public.  Geogre 01:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * See, the question is whether there are benefits or harms. I do not know that the "real name" of Charles Matthews is Charles Matthews, and it doesn't matter.  For transparency, I need to know about the contributor, not the life outside of Wikipedia of that contributor.  I see little to no gain from a real name, so long as we stick to single accounts.  All we do here is try to build, improve, and maintain an encyclopedia, and that's where we should focus.  Some people want to submit their "expertise" and offer up their legal name lives to establish that.  I have always opposed any of that nonsense.  If you are an expert, you will establish that with expertise, not vocational accomplishments.  As for "accountability," the only benefit of a legal name would be legal recourse in criminal or civil court, and NLT comes into play for editors and administrators and arbitrators (but not for the Foundation, which is the legal entity).  For "transparency," it is again largely irrelevant, because transparency would only be at play if the person's legal identity were somehow a political partisan or activist, and that really ought to be clear long before the person becomes an arbitrator.  If it isn't, then that user is really not bringing it to Wikipedia.  Geogre 04:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I keep adding addenda, and I'm sorry, but here's another one: One motivation for this question some of the time is a belief that a person's off-Wikipedia beliefs and activities must be showing up at Wikipedia. If, for example, a person is a member of Greenpeace, some folks think that he shouldn't be editing the article on James Watt, and if a person is a member of the Aryan Nations, some people think that she shouldn't be editing the Abbie Hoffman page.  It's true that some people have some of their interests cloud their objectivity some of the time, but it's also true that most people do not have their outside interests cloud their judgment most of the time.  I will not assume that a Republican will always edit a Democrat's entry unfairly, and I know that I wouldn't edit a Republican's entry unfairly.  If people really want to know what my ideological views are, I'll be happy to tell, but the idea that we must have real names so that we can find out every activity, professional organization, etc., of a Wikipedia arbitrator to screen out what must be bias is insultingly cynical.  Geogre 03:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Anomo
1. Do you think there should be an age requirement for ArbCom? Anomo 12:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * See above (on whether non-administrators should be arbitrators) for why it's unlikely that someone very young will make the cut, but there is nothing about age that guarantees wisdom or maturity. It is more likely that older users will have the time and patience for the task, but there is no rule.  When people are younger, they have school, vacations, major transitions in their lives, and other things that make a 3 year term problematic. Geogre 12:34, 27 November 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 12:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What you're asking sounds a bit contradictory. If the account hasn't edited in months, then it's likely a dead account or a purpose account.  If that's true, then it can't really be blocked for violation of NPA.  I'm against alternate accounts in general, and I think our licensing of some of them has meant that all of our votes and discussions are weakened.  However, we allow them, so we allow them.  I have stated, above, that I have serious reservations about WP:NPA's use as a rationale for blocking.  I believe in blocking for disruption, not for nasty words.  If a redlinked account calls me a poopy head, it's not going to affect me.  If a bluelinked account name follows me around, undoing all my edits for spite, and picks fights on every talk page, then that account is disrupting the site, even if it says nothing or only mild things.  The latter should be blocked, while the former ignored.  Abusive individuals should not be tolerated, but it should be because of their abuse and not their language that they are blocked.  Dormant accounts have to be purged at some point, abusive users should be blocked, and all blocks should be done in collaboration, unless it is an emergency or automatic case (offensive account names are automatic). Geogre 12:34, 27 November 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 12:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't offer a blanket answer for that. Sometimes it's appropriate, and sometimes it's not.  If the reason is that the user talk page called me dirty names, it's pretty irrelevant, and I don't care if it stays, so long as we're not talking about an indefinitely banned person.  People who are banned forever do need their pages deleted, because, effectively, they're not here anymore.  If a user's pages are being used for an anti-Wikipedia purpose (running advertising, hosting "pr0n," maintaining deleted content, socializing with non-Wikipedians, cheating on school tests, and many other things), then it should be deleted: that is a case of deletion for the same reasons as the deletion of any article page.  If the deletion is taking place to silence someone alone, I don't agree with it.  I'm not sure it's kicking a person when he's down, though.  It's case by case by case.  Geogre 12:34, 27 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 12:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you're referring to WP:RPA, I'm wholly against it. I personally leave things, even if I think the other person is trolling or trawling, but there would be causes for doing it.  Basically, if you remove something, you have to leave a link to where you moved it or a link to a diff showing it in history.  Otherwise, even if it's done with a pure heart, I disagree with doing so.  Refactoring a whole talk page is fine, but not selectively.  There would need to be some outstanding reasons for doing that.  Geogre 12:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Clarification, lest I'm misunderstood: I am not referring to information that reveals real life identities, contact information, etc. Any edit that does that has to be removed, and it has to be removed from history, too.  I was referring only to disagreements and content disputes.  We have had people, in the past, who have tried to publish personal information about Wikipedia editors.  Not only are the people who do that to be indefinitely banned, but the edits themselves have to be removed.  That's not removal for insult, though: that's removal for the protection of the very basis of Wikipedia.  Geogre 03:13, 2 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 12:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Banned? I'm in favor, if the person is banned.  If the person is blocked, there needs to be a reason.  Remember that it used to be the case that all blocked users were blocked from talk pages as well as article pages.  Allowing people to edit their own talk pages while blocked is the innovation, and I agree with this innovation if the person is using the access to behave appropriately.  If the person is ranting and raving and raging, then it's not doing the user or the community any good. In general, people should have access to their talk pages while blocked, but, in general, people should use that access to try to make progress.  Geogre 12:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

6. Why do you feel in the past when in a conflict between ArbCom and administrators that ArbCom has always sided with the admins? Anomo 12:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I assume you mean "regular editors and administrators before ArbCom?" First, ArbCom has not always favored administrators, although it may seem that way.  Second, the people who manage to pass RFA are usually, at least, conversant with policy enough to not violate it flagrantly.  Sometimes administrators will go up to the line of policy violation, will game the system a bit, and, when they do, they usually do get sanctioned by ArbCom.  Additionally, administrators are usually quite visibly doing work around Wikipedia that builds up a history of good usage and character, so there is some benefit of the doubt that automatically rides with them, whereas the people in conflict with them are often very new or possessed of very narrow interests.  However, I have been in favor of greater use of temporary demotion of administrators on the basis that "from those to whom much is given, much is expected in return."  I do not appreciate administrators using shady methods for driving off even the shabby users and think that they ought to use collaboration and consultation in such cases.  If admin X is battling cryptid fan Y, he might like to block or antagonize to block Y, and that would be a mistake.  Instead, X should go to AN/I, make the issues clear, and build a consensus for action about Y, seek volunteers to counsel Y, etc.  If administrators do that, they will very rarely get into abusive territory.  Geogre 12:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah it was a typo. It should have been "Why do you feel in the past when in a conflict in ArbCom between non-admins and administrators that ArbCom has always sided with the admins?". Anomo 12:58, 27 November 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 23:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I bring with me a historical perspective on the growth of Wikipedia, a deeply held belief that we must not sprout power structures, and a belief that ArbCom's primary responsibility is to keep the atmosphere at Wikipedia healthy for writing the highest quality encyclopedia articles possible, that no one should be humiliated nor glorified at a project where we contribute anonymously and voluntarily. Geogre 03:09, 2 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 20:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I see what it is that you're asking. I had planned only to vote in favor of people.  There are some folks that I would like to support.  As for who I think should not be sitting, I don't think I need to say anything, and I don't think it would be appropriate.
 * I would like for each candidate to refrain from campaigning against people, too, but I would like that to be entire, including on "invisible" media like IRC. I will be happy to say that I will not vote to oppose, but I can't see how it's harmful to vote to support.
 * I also don't know that any of the present candidates have attacked each other or gone into fights with each other so far. I hope it remains that way.  Geogre 20:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You answered my question. Thanks. -- Cyde Weys 22:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I now see who you may be referring to. I do object to that person's being on ArbCom, but I shouldn't need to campaign, as it is relatively likely that those familiar will turn out against.  Barring Jimbo fiat, I would be content to let actual voters actually vote.  Geogre 01:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

(Removed a fallacy of many questions that was about my feelings toward a single user instead of my interpretation of policy or temperament as an arbitrator. Geogre 12:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC) )

Question from TheronJ
1. You mention recusal a few times above. Based on your background, any prior conflicts, etc., are there any areas or topics where you anticipate receiving requests for recusal or would consider self-recusal? If so, what are those areas and how would you resolve the issue of recusal in those areas? Thanks, TheronJ 19:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Basically, I think a person should recuse if there good case for it before the deliberation. The problem at present is that the good folks recuse and the bad folks don't, and there is no appeal over the matter.
 * As I have said elsewhere, ArbCom is dispute resolution. It is, at most, a judicial branch to Wikipedia: it lacks executive and legislative powers.  ArbCom is not about making policy or enforcing policy.  For enforcement, there are only the users themselves, because we're volunteers.  Therefore, civil disobedience would be game over.  We volunteer, and a mass withdrawal of voluntary effort kills everything.  We must be trustworthy and trusted.  If we arbitrate cases where the people in question believe that we have involvement, then we're not going to have them listen to what we say.
 * The "losers" of an arbitration will often complain that the judges were biased, but that is not what I'm talking about. If people are asking before the deliberations that a person recuse himself, then that means that the disputant and well wishers will lack faith in the process of dispute resolution.  What I would like is for there to be a mechanism for people to appeal and seek a simple majority determination failure to recuse.
 * As for me, I think there are people I am in conflict with because of a strong disagreement over policy and proper actions, and there are people who simply do not get along with me. I might not recuse if it were an issue that I think endangers the community, but if other people think that I am incapable of being impartial, then I will recuse.  It's better that we all agree with a weak decision than that we have a bold and powerful statement and massive dissent (and disintegration).  Geogre 20:11, 3 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".


 * That's a strange question. I'm not sure why winning or losing would make any difference at all.  I am concerned that people not develop parties, and when I see people trying to create them, it makes me oppose them.  Other than that, I think I have something to offer on the policy and resolution side.  Geogre 20:33, 6 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]]?


 * Yes, well, there are some pretty villainous things going on on IRC and a good deal of misrepresentation born out of rancor and injured feelings. That's too bad.  Generally, I think we have a good slate of candidates, and there are many who would do a great job.  There are only a few that I feel would lead us in a bad direction, who would put their personal feelings ahead of project goals.  In fact, I don't think there are enough like that running to even fill the vacancies, so I'm pretty optimistic for the project.  Geogre 20:33, 6 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.


 * What have I done wrong? If I think I have done wrong, I have tried to correct it: it is a wiki, after all.  There was one occasion when I speedy deleted an article without checking the history, and so I was tricked by a vandal.  That got sorted out pretty quickly.  Other than that, nothing much.  I don't deal with personalities, don't have any interest in them, and don't offer my own for anyone else to love or hate.  It's all about the articles and the actions.  Some people feel very, very differently.  Some people want to be admired and acknowledged.  That doesn't appeal to me.  Geogre 20:33, 6 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 do when people talk to me and tell me how I have offended them. I don't have any debts on the balance sheet just now, so I haven't a clue what is motivating the question specifically.  If I oppose someone, it is for policy reasons, not personal ones.  Geogre 20:33, 6 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.


 * Yes, well, that's the general crisis. Without a top-down structure some of the time, there can't be a constitution, but, where some people believe in self appointment and devil take the hindmost, I believe in properly constituting any such structure, with its being answerable to the general community.  The difficulty in changing policy at present is bad, but it is also good, because it means big floods of noxious users can't override the old system.  Geogre 20:33, 6 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 contribute information, correct mistakes, and offer syntheses not available elsewhere on the web, and I try to nudge the vehicle in the right direction when it begins to drift into social networking, autocracy, or hopeless paralysis. If those dangers ever overwhelm the project (and they're close now), then I'll go look into peer reviewed encyclopedia contributions.  Geogre 20:33, 6 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 10:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I was actually in Manhattan on September 11, 2001. I was about two miles away from the towers, and I saw the aftermath.  In inherently hot topics like this one, and with topics where there are people with minority points of view, we have to be inherently conservative.  This is not because there is an editorial decision to suppress or "censor" anything, but rather because it is more important that we be credible and correct than that we set the record straight.  We are not here to tell the truth, but, instead, to report knowledge that is widely attested.  Wikipedia's fundamental rules against original research, for reliable sources, and preference for print over web, means that we should, by our nature, lag behind the world.  Wikipedia is not a venue for negotiating ultimate truth, for exposing hidden knowledge, or setting straight the historical record.  Therefore, those who want to rewrite to include minorities points of view have to be satisfied with a "criticisms and other theories" section until such a time as those become majority points of view.  The same battles are fought over ethnic, national, and religious topics, and in each case we have to drag our feet and blunt the impulse to "tell the truth They don't want you to know."  That's simply not our function.  Geogre 12:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you please clarify statement: "Wikipedia is not a venue for negotiating ultimate truth, for exposing hidden knowledge, or setting straight the historical record." Especially the last part. The reason I ask? From your response one could conclude that you would be reluctant (conservative if you prefer) to present new facts which pass to light, even if such facts meet WP:RS, WP:V, WP:EL… If new verifiable facts (ultimate truth?) are presented and we fail to recognize them and such, wouldn’t our lag be considered as deliberate misinformation of Wiki users? Further, in your opinion, would personal experience, emotions or nationality affect your role as arbitrator as they affected your reply? In other words would you be able to recognize the need for self recusal due to personal experiences, patriotism and similes? Lovelight 13:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact, it would be and probably should be deliberate. Encyclopedias of all sorts lag behind the world.  Because we are a tertiary source of information, we're not in the business of breaking new ground.  Our news wire breaks new information, but our encyclopedia has to be pretty slow, especially if there is controversy about a statement.  For example, if the subject were global warming, we ought to be a bit sluggish with the report that Antarctica is experiencing greater snowfall (because it should be the world's greatest desert and snowfall means that the place is warming) because James Inhoff and others (whom I regard as so profoundly wrong and ridiculous as to be nearly inadmissable) are questioning it.  Even though I am sure that the report is correct, the controversy means that we should include the information only if we also include the fact that this is a currently disputed finding.  Encyclopedias should never be where you go to find out the newest information.  A print encyclopedia, for example, is always at least two years out of date the moment it is published.  We are nothing like that bad, but that doesn't mean that we are an up to the minute source.  We have to let the dust settle a bit.  I feel this way about "Internet memes," too.  Time lets the debates die down a bit and clarifies what we, as amateurs, cannot do: the decision between right and wrong information.  Geogre 13:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time, and prompt replies. You have my support. Lovelight 14:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Question from Zoe
What is your feeling concerning the potential vote to desysop User:MONGO? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC) (rudely butting into Zoe's question, and wrapping mind around the brilliantly taken opportunity to plug Brecht): What's your reading of this finding of fact: Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Proposed decision. Do you think that it's enough that there's appropriate evidence on the /Evidence page, or should findings of fact include explicit evidence of what is being found? Zocky | picture popups 17:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ugh. I don't want to do a Clarence Thomas and say that I "refuse to comment on any issue that might come up before the" committee, but I am uncomfortable commenting here.  MONGO has been a good administrator, but he has also allowed the real and dreadful harassment he has received from the ED people to push him into very strong reactions.  What I come back to, in my own mind, is that we must never let the actions of outside and parasitical sites cause us to stop focusing on our principles and our standards.  If we ever do, then we empower the trolls, delight the unhappy, and create more trouble than we cure.  It's like bombing a village because there are terrorists in there: you might get the terrorists, but you cease to be a free government, and you create terrorists.  You can't forget AGF and "encyclopedia anyone can edit" because other sites target us.  I reluctantly agree with the ArbCom's statements that MONGO has been poked and provoked into behaving badly.
 * That doesn't mean that I agree with a loss of status in a flat manner. A few months ago, I came up with a demotion idea.  The idea behind demotion is that people lose status for a timed period much more frequently than they get blocked or simply demoted flatly.  If "the ED matter is dead," as one arbitrator says, then I don't know that MONGO is going to be likely to continue on the bad path.  If the 9/11 wars are ongoing, then a temporary demotion might be more appropriate. However, I do think abuse has taken place.  As Bertolt Brecht said, "Even hatred of debasement can make your features coarse."  If there is no temporary demotion on the table, I have to reluctantly agree with other folks on ArbCom, but with no prejudice about reacquiring status.  Geogre 10:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I wrote user:Geogre/People People the day before last because I have been thinking about how people committed to the best of the project can get swallowed up by personalities and social networking and how that can lead to real problems. Geogre 10:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, forgive me for taking the general road rather than the narrow path, but I deplore the lack of detail and communication from ArbCom. It allows for nebulous findings and readings that can be misused later.  There is no usefulness in a finding that is so general that it looks disconnected from the evidence.  Most of the findings of fact are platitudinous, and there are, sometimes, really strained readings among them.  When a stretched reading is coupled with a reluctance to explain, ArbCom weakens its position as a resolution body.  The higher the proposed injunction or penalty, the greater the need to communicate and in detail and in public.  Other administrators, other people addressing the contentious issues, have no guidance for the bounds of decency and appropriate action if all we get are punitive-sounding and ex cathedra rulings.  Obviously, I have been dissatisfied with the written decisions, and that has been a reason for my own standing for election.  Geogre 18:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)