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

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.
 * I do not have a particular incident that stands out, though the case involving Eternal Equinox was one that I would have liked to have seen a better understanding by the arbitrators regarding the need to come to a verdict more quickly, as two months is simply too long for what I saw as an open and shut case. Those voting for arbitrators need to ensure that the candidate they are supporting is someone that is going to do all they can to ensure a fair and just settlement in as speedy a manner as possible to situations that are threatening Wikipedia and its contributors. Voters need to look for the candidates that they trust will not allow pettiness to dictate their decisions that will ensure justice and can do the right thing for this project. Voters should know that arbitrators, through a consensus of votes, have the authority to ban editors found to be egregiously in violation of policies, which is a powerful authority that is never to be taken lightly. I have been involved in implementing community based blocks, but it brings me no great joy, as I would also prefer to see an editor take the action they need to ensure they could continue to contribute. However, if the evidence supports a temporary or long term ban, I would vote to do so.

1a. Expedite a case risks having justice being compromised at times. Ensure fairness in handing out judgements, on the other hand can be time-consuming and difficult. Let's face it, you can't always have both - Which one do you prefer?
 * I can think of one ArbCom case that was brought to a speedy conclusion in less than 5 days from when the case was opened, namely, Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war. My understanding is that most parties found the remedies to be fair at that time. In that case, numerous admins were involved and the issue at hand was of great concern to the Foundation, so a swift process was, I believe, demanded. I can think of no time in which I would participate in an expedious case unless requested to do so by the Foundation of Jimbo Wales. With that said, I hope all respect the fact that I support justice and fairness in ArbCom decisions, so I would be in that group. However, I believe that fairness and justice can be achived in a timely manner and hope that a guideline that expicitly states that ArbCom decsions should be brought to a close within 30 days of a case being opened, can be implemented. Naturally, some cases simply may not be able to meet this guideline, as deliberation of proposed remedies and the examination of complex evidence may take more time than recommended by a 30 day guideline.

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?
 * The guideline we most need to be policy is reliable sources. The current guideline would need to better demonstrate what is a reliable source and needs to specify that blogs and non peer reviewed papers are not to be considered suitable for referencing. Though we have verifiability as an adjunct to reliable sources, one oftentimes is forced to used both when debating what is acceptable as a source. If Jimbo said make it so, that is the guideline I would most want to see improved, better delineated and made into policy.

3. It is expected that some successful candidates will receive checkuser and oversight privileges. Have you read and understood foundation policies regulating these privileges, and able to help out fellow Wikipedians on avenues (e.g. WP:RFCU) in a timely manner should you be granted either or both of them?
 * I am well acquainted with checkuser, having made a few requests myself and understand that it is not to be used for "fishing". I would always demand clear evidence of sockpuppetry and would discuss the use of checkuser with another editor granted with this authority until I have been involved in several situations. In keeping with the policy, I would never divulge personal information aside from those situations that explicitly demand it, as stated by policy. I would never use checkuser for personal gain, and since all use of the tool is logged for others with this ability to review, I can't imagine that I would retain such ability if I were to ever misuse it. I would not use checkuser to aide or assist editors with whom I have had long standing working relationships with. As far as oversight ability, I would never use this for personal gain, and would adhere to policy at all times. I have long defended the right of privacy of even those whose sole purpose on Wikipedia is disruption. I also have a zero tolerance policy when an editor’s personal information is posted against their wishes. I would use, upon direction the oversight tools if there was a violation regarding a biography of a living person as directed by policy. In both cases, I would ensure that I monitor both WP:RFCU and the oversight email and do my best to respond as quickly as possible.

4. What is integrity, accountability and transparency to you on the ArbCom?
 * Integrity to me as a member of ArbCom would mean that I not allow my personal biases to interfere with my effort to ensure a fair judgment. As someone who has been involved with the law for almost 2 decades, my employment has always been open to review and I have served as a public servant, much as I would if I were an arbitrator. Arbitrators must set the highest example as they occupy very visible positions within the Wikipedia community and others look to ArbCom for inspiration, not disappointment. All actions by an arbitrator must be accountable to the community and should demonstrate this through public channels by providing rationale and reasoning behind a determination. I would do all I can to ensure that my decisions are based on the preponderance of evidence that support such decisions. As far as transparency goes, I never use IRC, and the only thing I can see that the arbitrators mailing list is good for is to discuss information that is of a private nature such as IP addresses, and other personal information, that cannot be disclosed publicly. I feel that all decision making discussions should be on Wikipedia talk pages as that is the best way to demonstrate transparency.

5. Humour, a tradition of Wikipedian culture, has seen through several controversies in recent history. This is including but not limited to bad jokes and other deleted nonsense, parody policies/essays, April Fools' Day, whole userpages, userboxes... Do you think that they are all just harmless fun, or that they are all nonsense that must go?
 * If you look at my userpage, I have not one userbox...and I generally see them as clutter, but that's my opinion. Nothing else that you link to above seems disruptive or troublesome in the least. Though I think our efforts should me maximized to writing encyclopedic articles, cleaning up the articles we have and protecting the editors and Wikipedia from disruption, all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy...therefore, I see there is always latitude for some pages that are generally unrelated to the project aside from what it means to the inner culture of Wikipedia and it's contributors.

Questions from Fys
1. I will be asking the same three questions to every candidate. 'Arbitration' is a process of dispute resolution. If the parties to an arbitration, after it has gone to the committee, manage to resolve the dispute or any part of it themselves, would you continue the case or that part of it? If so, why, and if not, why not? Fys. &#147;Tafys aym&#148;. 23:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I would continue the case if the consensus among the committee was to continue to do so. In some cases, very interesting situations are brought up that may impact editors and the community, and through examination of the evidence presented may help set a precedent that might be applicable to later decisions, though I am not nor is any Wikipedian forever bound by precedent, especially since this is an evolving community. If a mutual agreement is decided by those that brought a case to arbitration and they demonstrate that past differences have been resolved, then that would definitely be taken into consideration, depending on the case presented.

2. What role do you believe private discussions between the parties and members of the committee should play in determining the outcome of Arbitration cases? Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 23:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I am concerned, there are rare situations in which a decision may need to be discussed privately. If Jimbo Wales wished to hold a private discussion with me, it would be just that, for example. In cases where the need to protect the personal information of even an egregious abuser of Wikipedia demands private discussions about a decision, I would also support that, and hope editors would believe me when I explain to them that the decision was discussed in private because evidence would have been a violation of the arbcom complainant or defenders right to privacy. In all other cases, I much prefer to keep everything on Wikipedia talk pages. In a more direct answer to your question, I believe that only a small percentage of the decisions that ArbCom renders are based primarily on private discussions, and hope that my fellow members would understand my demand for as much transparency of our decision as legally allowable. I wanted to add that some deliberations are sometimes held in private by arbitrators, but one of the main reasons this is done is because there are interested parties involved that may be greatly offended. The process is an evolution of sorts, in that early discussions of what the issues are may have little to do with the final decisions. My policy in the end would be to ensure that interested parties had full understanding in public as to why the final decision was reached.

3. Take a look at Probation. Under what circumstances should users who have not had any restrictions on their editing imposed, be removed from probation? Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 23:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have great faith in our editors that when they provide full disclosure of another’s edit warring or disruption, that probation should be enforced to its full time span and an arbitrator shouldn't get "soft" due to the pleading of an offender for leniency. The net result when arbitrators lift probation without the consent of those that brought forth the original complaint, is one of betrayal. I would agree to a lift of such probation if those that had originally brought forth complaints gave ample proof that probation could then be lifted. This might occur if the editor on probation had altered their editing style and demonstrated that they were reformed on article discussion pages or in similar articles. The evidence would need to be presented by those who originally brought forth the complaint, and the time span would be anywhere from a few weeks to several months after the probation was originally imposed.

Questions from Newyorkbrad
1. A standard question I am asking all the candidates. What can be done to reduce the delays in the arbitration process?
 * Here's what can be done. Demand a maximum 30 day arbitration process after the case is accepted. Allow approximately two weeks to post evidence and permit arbitrators to examine it. Ten days to determine a proposed decision and to allow arbitrators to vote on it and several more days to finalize the decisions and close the case. I would hope that in clear cases without a lot of debate, that a decision could be achieved in much less than 30 days.

2. And a question specific to MONGO based on your statement. You state that you "will be completely open to recall" as an arbitrator. As far as I know, "arbitrators open to recall" is a thus far nonexistent category. How do you envision this process working, and how would you avoid a situation in which recall could routinely be sought be any party or parties unhappy with the outcome of their case? Newyorkbrad 00:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I would expect that those that have a decision brought against them would generally be displeased and would like to see me removed from the position of arbitrator. The recall thing is a personal matter for me only, and I do not expect other arbitrators to adhere to it. I am actually opposed to administrator recall for the very reasons you have mentioned. Arbitrators, however, are held to a higher standard than administrators, so if my fellow members of ArbCom, the Foundation or Jimbo Wales wished that I no longer be a member, I would immediately step down and relinquish any administrative tools that were given to me such as checkuser and oversight. If there is an outcry from the community that I step down and fellow arbitrators agree with their complaint, I would retire from the position of arbitrator.

3. Another standard question I'm asking everyone. If elected, do you anticipate being actively involved in drafting the actual decisions of cases? Do you have any writing experience that would be relevant to this activity? Newyorkbrad 03:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I want direct involvement and will be doing some of the wording on findings of facts, proposed decisions and proposed remedies should I become an arbitrator. I see that only a few of the arbitrators do most of the work on the wording of cases, and I think more involvement is needed than just a support or oppose of the findings and other areas which have already been written. Of course, anyone, even those who have zero involvement in a case, may offer evidence, contribute to discussions, suggest proposed remedies and provide opinions on the issues at stake. I would always examine all evidence presented, so long as I was confident that the contributor did not have a conflict of interest. Aside from over 200 articles I have started here on Wikipedia, including a few FA's, I do not consider myself to be an eloquent writer, but that is because I am a facts and figures researcher. I have two decades of law enforcement experience and in the course of my career, have written over a thousand incident reports and medical incident reviews as well as performance appraisals and presentations to high level managers. Reports written in my career are directly utilized in courts of law as evidence, or as paperwork in defense of actions that were part of an incident.

Questions from Brian New Zealand

 * I will be asking the same questions to every candidate thus they do not specifically target you

1.Do you hold any strong political or religious opinions (e.g. concerning George Bush, Islam etc) If so, would you recluse yourself from cases centred on these? 2.How would you handle a case in which you were personally involved?
 * When I started on Wikipedia, I did a lot of editing to the George W Bush article and other articles centered around the Iraq war. Now all I do is revert vandalism and make an occasional comment. I participate in discussions and editing in articles related to the Septemeber 11, 2001 attacks, but the basis of my involvement is to minimize the conspiracy theories surrounding this event. My religious convictions are not strong and I don't edit such articles, aside from vandalism reversions. There is never a time I would be involved in a case if I knew it was an an area in which I might be biased. My edits are all fully transparent.
 * I have been involved in several ArbCom cases, one of which Requests for arbitration/MONGO just recently ended. If arbitration was brought against me while I am an arbitrator, I would submit my evidence as usual, and not use any position of priviledge to impact the outcome. If I wasn't a named party to a case, but had strong ties to the editors involved in it, I would recuse myself from the case.

3.How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"?
 * Well, if I saw that there was an effort to render a decision that wasn't backed by the evidence, that was either too harsh or too lenient, or was simply not fair, I definitely would discuss the matter with other members of ArbCom. If I disagreed with a finding of fact and or a proposed decision, I would also oppose such. I have tradionally been an independent thinker and I want to do what is in the best interest of the community. I do not personally know any of the other ArbCom members, having never worked with any of them on a policy or in article space, so there are no alligences to any of them, aside from what I hope is a mutual desire to ensure that disruptive editors and difficult cases are decided on fairly.

4.How many hours a month do you think you will need to be a good Arbitrator and are you really willing to put in the time?
 * I have slowed down editing in the two WikiProjects that I have been involved in, though I plan on actually stepping up my efforts in a third project that I have neglected. I spend about 10 hours a week doing adminstrative duties such as page protections, vandal blocking and speedy deletions, which can be done by others. Between my usual hours I spend on Wikipedia and a reduction of other areas I would have 15 to 20 hours a week that I can spend on cases. If the case load is low, then I would spend more time working in article space so there is plenty of time I have to be able to dedicate to the committee. I also have time to dedicate to checkuser requests as well, if I have that administrative tool assigned to me.

5. Do you think that someone who is critical of Arbitration Committee decisions is in violation of WP:AGF?
 * No, I don't and AGF is one thing I rarely ask others to do. I hope that good faith is assumed though if a portion of a decision is made in private to protect the privacy rights of involved editors. If we tell folks we had to do this to ensure the privacy of those involved in an ArbCom case, I hope that editors will accept this to be a fact, and not some effort to hide the decision making process from them. If a decision on a difficult case is made and many don't like the outcome, I will always welcome complaints and do my best to explain why I came to the decision I did.

6.'' If chosen, you will need to arbitrate on disputes arising from the creation or revision of articles. Experience of creating and revising articles yourself, particularly where it has involved collaboration, is very valuable in understanding the mindset of disputants who come to arbitration. With reference to your own edits in the main article namespace, please demonstrate why you think you have the right experience to be a good arbitrator?''
 * Retreat of glaciers since 1850 is an article I started, not really believing that glaciers worldwide were retreating. There were four other major contributors to the article, and we all come from very divergent fields and except from one glaciologist, none of us were experts. This article was a pleasure to work on, ended up becoming featured and is one of the best examples of a collaborative effort I know of on Wikipedia. The article Collapse of the World Trade Center is an article I had worked on, until another editor showed up and made some fundamental changes which I at first opposed, yet now see his efforts to have been generally excellent. I have more recently been working on the article Red Deer and did a major overhaul, but now we are going to possibly split the article due to recent evidence that there are more than one species involved. For the sake of accuracy and for geographical differences in the name for this animal, which is known as an Elk in North America, there is good rationale to make a split. I have assisted editors in the article Capitalism in an effort to help them find a resolution to an ongoing dispute and done the same in Ward Churchill and at least a dozen other articles. As far as major disputes I have been involved in, that would include articles such as September 11, 2001 attacks, where an ongoing effort to introduce POV and unreliable source material is a never ending situation. I was also requested to assist in the article Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, and made efforts on the discussion pages there to try and help those editors find a resolution to their content dispute, though the polarization of the viewpoints made me suggest mediation, but I believe I did help them avoid arbitration, which is something I always hope editors can achieve.

7.What are your views with regards to transparency of ArbCom decisions?
 * As I mentioned above, I don't use IRC and the only purpose I can see that the arbtration mailing should be used for is the examination of evidence that cannot be posted in Wikipedia due to it possibly being an issue of privacy rights of the involved contributors. Aside from the off chance that Jimbo Wales or the Foundation wishes to discuss a matter with me in private, I would hope that all decision making is done on the respective ArbCom case talk pages. Basically, it is up to those bringing forth the case and those defending it to provide the diffs and other evidence to assist us in making a determination, which should be made in full view of all interested editors. I will always be happy to explain decisions rendered as well.

8.Do you think that administrators should be treated differently to non-administrators in ArbCom decisions? Brian | (Talk) 03:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * About the only difference between an administrator and an non-administrator is there was, at least at one point, a consensus of editors who felt an editor was trustworthy enough to be promoted to the admin level. Now some people are not interested in being an administrator and some are not able to gain a consensus of support to be promoted. But the bottom line is that what I would be looking at is the evidence, not the time they have been involved in the project or whether they were an administrator or not. If an administrator was demonstrated to have violated policy to the point they should be deadminned and possibly banned, I would support that decision on a case by case situation.

Questions from badlydrawnjeff
1.An arbitrator is often forced into making statements in areas s/he is not comfortable with, familiar with, or would otherwise be compelled to comment on. Do you believe you would be able to perform to that ability if you were elected?
 * There are areas of article content that I am not familiar with, and by that I mean, I have no education in those areas. If needed to make a decision about a content issue, I can become more educated to render a fair decision by doing the reading and related research on a subject matter that may be brought into question. There will certainly be people that want to know why I made a decision that I did, may not be happy with said decision and will want clarification for the basis of my decision. Difficult judgments certainly won't be easy to pass, and I always hope editors will seek out all avenues at dispute resolution, using ArbCom as the very last resort. If I see a lack of information in an evidence section of a case, I will always request that some reliable sources be provided or links directing me to areas that I need to become better educated about prior to passing a judgment. I try to be prepared to offer a full explanation of things as much as possible. The current ArbCom case, Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience is an example of a complex case that would involve doing further research to be able to render a well informed decision. In this case, the evidence presented is complex and the entire affair is well beyond simple examples of NPOV or civility, as the judgment to be rendered involves and affects future content on the project. I admit that as a sort of scientist with a masters in forensic anthropology, I am actually well aware of what is and what isn't based on scientific principles, but I use the linked case simply as an example of how complex the decision making process can be.

2.If one were to look back at some of your interactions with other users, there are times, justifiably at points and not as much in others, that your responses and reactions in situations where you have stong opinions and feelings are not often what would be considered the most calm or civil. Knowing, as you've stated above, that you would recuse yourself from issues with personal involvement (which is expected of anyone), how important is decorum in the context of the ArbCom?
 * Arbitrators definitely need to set as high a standard of civility as humanly possible, not allow others to pull them into ceaseless arguments, and must resist that human trait of needing to get in the last word. Arguments on Wikipedia should never be won by the person who is loudest or the one who is rudest, chasing away contributors who might otherwise want to continue to contribute. I do know that when a situation is not directly involving me, it is always easier to keep a calmer, more light-hearted attitude about the affair. There are times I could have been more civil, less argumentative and have resisted the need to get in the last word. I do know that when I first started on Wikipedia, I was very argumentative, alienating a few contributors who I now have great respect for. During my request for adminship, there were skeptics that promoting me was in the best interests of the project. There were also a few that initially had reservations who later withdrew their opposition and in two cases, they even switched to support. One editor had once considered an Rfc on my actions, yet when asked about our prior arguments, he then came to my Rfa and voted support (User:Rama). In addition, User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters was one of the most vocal opponents, yet he and I later worked hard together on Retreat of glaciers since 1850 and I have been asked by him to assist in the articles he has been involved in. It was when I became an administrator that I began to actually write most of the articles I started, and even managed to get a few of them to featured level, so the promotion to adminship made me a better contributor. There is a kind of "must fill these shoes" attitude I have, correlating with wearing a uniform which is supposed to actually impact someone's behavior, and believe it or not, (at least in my case), it does. On another tangent, one thing I have reflected on lately is the issue involving the ED website. I have looked over my contributions from around the time when the article about me was created on that website, and for the life of me, I have no idea what I did that made someone angry enough at me to write that initial article. I wish I did know, so I could see if what I did was wrong, and if so, make a determined effort to make amends.

3.What are your feelings about ArbCom decisions that do not necessarily reflect the policies, guidelines, or spirit of the project at large? Can the community expect you to arbitrate with those things in mind?
 * I am generally an inclusionist, but demand that articles meet our policies for inclusion. I am deeply opposed to advertising, or the use of Wikipedia to establish some sort of credibility. There are cases in which prior precedents have been ignored, and that is sometimes the best thing to do since this is an evolving project and what might work well in the past, may no longer be viable for the present. I really am not interested in making decisions that are going to have anything but a positive effect on Wikipedia and its contributors. However, there may be times that a tough call needs to be made and I know that there will be times that it may be very difficult to make everybody happy. I stand by policy, guidelines and the spirit of collaboration and in most cases inclusion as a rule of thumb, so those decisions that would be divergent from existing policy would have to be based on the belief that the changes proposed as remedies would be improvements over existing policies. In a nutshell, ArbCom should always follow policy and guidelines as well as the spirit of the project, unless there is proof or at the very least a strong argument that proposed changes will be beneficial.

Additional Questions
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 02:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I see them primarily as tools usually, but not always given to ArbCom members to aide them in examining evidence of malicious sockpuppetry, vandalism and for other legal purposes like providing IP information to the Foundation as part of an investigation and removing libelous and/or personal information from article space. I'm not all that interested in having either tool assignment, but would use them, according to policy, if such use would help me protect Wikipedia and its contributors. Since my use of checkuser and oversight would be transparent to others with the same tools, there is no chance I would retain these tools if I used them for personal reasons. If given these tools I would do what I could in a timely manner to aide those that make a request for checkuser or post to the oversight mailing list to have personal information and libel removed from project pages. I see both tools as being advanced that should only be entrusted to those who may really have a need for them, and I am not really supportive of awarding them to anyone who is not directly approved either by the Foundation, Jimbo Wales or at least two arbitrators. With that said, if a strong argument is made that providing checkuser and oversight to more editors will aide Wikipedia in protecting itself, then I would be happy to see such evidence (ie:ratio of vandal accounts, amount of personal information posted per day, etc.) and would possibly support extending the tools to a few highly respected and trustworthy editors.--MONGO 09:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Another candidate remarked that arbcom must "get its hands dirty with cases that involve looking at content." What's your view on the appropriate scope of remedies: are they limited strictly to behavior, or might they sometimes include settling content? Derex 11:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ArbCom focuses on editors and issues generally, and the content is left up to the contributors and policy. Policy is not delegated by arbcom, but decisions rendered in cases affect policies to a degree. This is a complex matter, and I would generally not be interested in settling content issues. If you examine a few past decisions, you'll see that they do not involve content generally speaking. But establishing that existing policy and guidelines are to be followed entrenches these policies further as decisions by the arbitrators are expected to be followed. These findings of facts and remedies do impact the content in article space since it is made clear that policies and guidelines brought into cases and listed as areas that have been violated oftentimes arise directly from content disputes! Say editor X is in disagreement with editors Y and Z. The disagreement is about the content of an article. The disagreements become heated, civility is violated, perhaps 3RR is violated and excessive edit warring takes place. The case is brought before ArbCom, and they take the case based on a demonstration of policy violations or related circumstances. Editor X is banned for a period of time...and the net effect is article stabilization if no other parties pick up the slack of the now banned editor X. Does this help the article content? Well, it does if the efforts of editor X are demonstrated to have been not helpful to the content, but that is not what was examined oftentimes. If you look at the requests for arbitration, cases requesting an examination of content are generally rejected. I do not think that at this time, ArbCom should be involved in settling content issues directly.

3. If you were to arbitrate a matter and that issue or things that came up in that issue made you angry or you felt very passionate about about them, what would you do? Anomo 18:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If I knew going into a case that there would be a conflict of interest with myself and either those involved in the case or the issues presented in the case, I would recuse myself from involvement prior to taking the case. If issues came up during the case in which I felt angry or passionate, I would not permit those emotions from becoming part of any written exchanges or to have an adverse impact on my determination to provide a fair decision. I noticed that in most cases that are accepted by the arbitration committee, in many case, the arbitrators that accept the case never have any further involvement in the matter, and other arbitrators will later work on establishing findings of facts, examine and question those presenting evidence and establish proposed decisions and the final verdict. I assume that in some of these cases, the arbitrators may decide that they should recuse themselves for various reasons. If I was already working on a case and issues arose in which I was so angry or passionate that I felt that I should withdraw my contributions, I would do so, hoping that another arbitrator would accept this as best for the final outcome, and be willing to take over.

4. You had stated your various occupations on Wikipedia. For your current one, what exactly do you do for homeland security? Anomo 22:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What is homeland security? MONGO 08:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * He appears to be speaking of the United States Department of Homeland Security, commonly known as simply Homeland Security according to the article. Mexcellent 04:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, that...there are only 9 of us that do the same job...and we're numbered 001-009. You get bonus points if you can guess which number I am.--MONGO 05:03, 16 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?) :-)
 * Tough questions, but fair. Remember that there may be a thousand admins, but anyone who meets the qualifications for arbcom is eligible to run. I would say that in actuality, since there must be ten thousand or more contributors who meet the qualifications to run for arbcom, then the process to become an arbitrator should be many times more difficult than 100.

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?
 * ArbCom has the power to examine whether existing policy has been violated, and through remedies, may influence the formulation of new policy but only as a form of suggestion per se. I do not feel that ArbCom should determine policy. This is a special case regarding the legal issues which might be best determined by the Foundation lawyers as far as protecting children's privacy issues are concerned. Great trust is placed in the hands of the community to reach consensus for new policy implementation and to allow a relative few persons that work below the foundation level, the power to determine new policy is not something I support as a rule. If directed by the Foundation or Jimbo Wales to achieve this result, then that would be a different matter. As far as examining whether there was a poll plurality to formulate new policy, that also is complicated. On the one hand, since there is no one else to examine polls which might be close in terms of the supporters and opposes, ArbCom may have the authority to see if the policy proposal meets consensus, but probably this should better be supported by the Foundation and/or Jimbo Wales. There have been very few policy approvals in recent years and the difficulty of this is evidenced by examining that in 5 of 8 cases mentioned here, Jimbo Wales either sponsored or supported these new policies and alterations, while at lest 80 more have failed to be implemented. In quick review, I do not think ArbCom should determine policy, only ensure it has been followed, and I also believe that policy should be achieved by strong consensus by Wikipedia contributors and/or the Foundation and Jimbo Wales. To allow ArbCom the power to determine policy is not what the arbitration committee was originally designated to do.

2. 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?
 * ArbCom should only examine whether or not policy was not followed. In the case you mention, Carnildo was not a party in the case, so examination of whether he was properly or improperly repromoted to admin by the crats was not part of that case and should not have been. If folks wished to see if the repromotion of Carnildo against consensus by the crats was a direct issue they wished ArbCom to address, then they could always submit a RFAr in the proper venue. I do understand that the crats that repromoted Carnildo made it clear that they would reexamine in 60 days and if evidence was presented that he (Carnildo) had misused his admin tools, then his adminship would be taken away from him. Speaking generally, the joint actions of several crats to promote or to not promote an admin candidate is not a case that ArbCom should be involved in. Fred Bauder did mention that the promotion was without consensus, but I would add that since Carnildo was not party to the case, that actions against him in that case were without merit. I do not believe that the decisions by crats to either promote or not promote an admin candidate should be addressed by ArbCom.

3. Various arbcom decisions (can't find a link right now - bonus points for finding a link to an arbcom decision saying this!) have taken into account a user's service to the Wikipedia. Several times they have written that an otherwise good user that has a rare instance of misbehaviour can be treated differently than a user whose similar misbehaviour is their main or sole contribution to the Wikipedia. Do you agree or not, and why?
 * No doubt that excellent editors are sometimes confronted with those whose sole purpose on Wikipedia is to disrupt. These great editors may be placed in situations by a well versed disrupter that might make the great editor lose his/her cool, perform more reverts than they normally would or become uncivil. If a lapse of judgment such as this happens to an editor in good standing, naturally it would be viewed as an aberration. If an editor's history demonstrated that their core effect on Wikipedia was shown to be disruptive, then that would also work against them in a case. Bear in mind that when parties bring forth a request for arbitration, that all parties involved should expect to have their editing history, block logs and other related evidence reviewed. Yes, editors in good standing that make mistakes of a temporary nature are to generally be forgiven over those editors whose primary focus on Wikipedia is against policies. In the case of Requests_for_arbitration/Giano, I definitely see that what was posted as evidence that he had been uncivil and other items, had nothing to do with the remedies that were finally passed...that seems to be fairly close to a situation where excellent contributions are enough to forgive any short term transgressions.

4. 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.
 * The primary focus of Wikipedians should always be to write and improve articles. While we have over 1 thousand admins, maybe only a third of them are actively engaged on a regular basis. As an admin myself, I know that should I stop reverting vandalism, stop administering blocks, cease monitoring AN and related noticeboards and doing admin duties in general, that someone will fill the void. Good writers are much more difficult to find and to retain than are administrators. We are blessed with a very few excellent writers, and of the perhaps 1,000 FA's, I know that one fellow wrote over 50 of them, and if you add in outstanding editors such as User:Bishonen, User:Giano, and User:Geogre to name a few that come to mind, they must have many articles themselves. I myself have been involved in 4 FA's, and in one instance, had not another excellent writer assisted me, it never would have been endorsed. Aside from Shoshone National Forest, which I wrote almost independently up to the FAC review, the other three I worked on were collaborative, while the other writers I mentioned have written their FA's almost completely independently. Therefore, since I have been involved in both FA's and admin duties, I have found that good writers are harder to find. In the case of a situation where a great writer and an administrator come in conflict, the core answer to who gets priority treatment is based on the evidence. While all efforts should be made to retain, encourage and draw in great writers, should they be found to be egregiously in violation of policy, and or thinking that because they are great writers they are exempt from policy, then an appropriate punishment has merit. Without a system of rules to follow, we only fall into a state of anarchy. Let's look at the Giano situation for a moment. Stretching back to the Carnildo blocks in which he blocked Giano, User:El C and User:Carbonite indefinitely all in the same minute (!), I see a real problem. In fact, as far as Giano's indefinite block, three admins quickly reverted Carnildo's block, including User:Worldtraveller, who is another great writer that we have now also lost. Carnildo was desysopped and for good reason. We lost Carbonite due to this situation and ElC took a break but luckily, came back to us, as did Giano. When Carnildo was readminned with zero consensus to do so, Giano was (rightfully I believe) upset about the affair and vented fairly loudly on a few noticeboards and in other areas. I agree with Giano's disappointment, and especially the lack of apology offered by Carnildo to those he had blocked. I think that the silencing of Giano for speaking his mind was the wrong thing to do overall.

5. 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 do agree with the core of most arbcom decisions; though there are individual remedies I have found to be ones I would not have supported. In the case of Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick I would have proposed that he be banned for one year from Wikipedia, based on fairly clear evidence that he was the same editor as already sanctioned User:Davenbelle. I thought the remedies were too soft, but Moby Dick appears to not edited since August, at least not with that username. In the Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war, I would have proposed that Carnildo not be eligible to reapply for adminship for at least six months, more likely would have preferred a year, but would have been fairly insistent on six months. Two weeks is simply not fair after he indefinitely blocked three well established editors.

6. 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?
 * No doubt it does seem like a one man show at times, and I have been a bit disappointed that few arbitrators bother to get involved in some discussions of certain cases as well. I have every intention of working on the workshop, proposed remedies and findings and hope to add my thoughts to these areas. This isn't some condemnation of the current arbitrators, just a clarification of what I see my involvement level as being, namely, that I will be well engaged in cases I work on.

7. 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) 17:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I would welcome an established editor who is not an admin to be a part of the arbitration committee and I do think that the perspective they give may benefit the decision making process. Deleted articles and other pages are sometimes undeleted for review by arbitrators and parties gathering evidence for cases, and I see no problem with sending a page that was deleted to an ArbCom member who doesn't have admin status via email, so they can review information. I don't believe that being an admin is a prerequisite for being an arbitrator.

Question from User:Tsunami Butler
You engaged in an edit war over the content of Collapse of the World Trade Center, during which you became quite abusive on the talk page, making satirical comments about your opponents and so on. I suppose that this has happened to many editors. However, I'd like to ask you about this: you used admin powers to block one of your opponents. I'd like you to explain why you did this, rather than asking a third party admin to evaluate the situation and, if appropriate, take action. My view is that people who use administrative powers for personal agendas can't be trusted with yet more ArbCom powers. --Tsunami Butler 15:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you brought this up as there was an Rfc brought up on my actions at Requests for comment/MONGO. I generally agreed with those that stated I shouldn't issues blocks against persons I was in dispute with. As far as an edit war, I was not once blocked for 3RR in regards to my edits to the article Collapse of the World Trade Center, a target article for those who wish to use Wikipedia to post information that has little or no scientific basis. For the sake of addressing why I blocked, I'll repost my comments about that incident from the Rfc below:

posted information about me that is public knowledge, but then, after decided to deride it,, Skeena then insulted me  and later coyly said that I should have the right to answer about his misleading innuendo by adding links to websites that discuss the federal government watching over articles. When SkeenR previously made a mountain out of a molehill about my place of work, I discussed it with him on his talk page, months ago, so he is well aware that this was not to be taken and used to misrepresent me. SkeenaR was well aware that this kind of misrepresentation of my editing is a personal attack, in the manner that he was performing it and by posting it in article discussion pages. Due to prior knowledge of this, I blocked him for misrepresenting me in this malicious fashion.


 * Note that User:CBDunkerson unblocked and then reblocked SkeenaR, so CBDunkerson agreed with the block, just disagreed with the fact that I was the right person to perform the block.
 * I would also like to point out that according to the elections, you have to have a registered account before October 1, 2006 and that you also need to have 150 edits on en.wiki before voting...so you might want to use your main account when you vote.

Perhaps you wish to insinuate that I am a sock puppet. I'm not. I can't vote, but I can ask this question, which I hope has helped others to make an informed voting decision. --Tsunami Butler 23:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Linking to an edit I did thousands of edits ago out of the blue on your 10th Wikipedia edit is just interesting to me, I guess. But if you have any fuurther questions, I am always happy to answer them.--MONGO 05:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Question(s) from maclean
Do you have dispute resolution experience handling cases 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 02:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have not been a member of any of the above mentioned forums. Most of my dispute resolution experience has been when other editors (many of which are potentially politically and ideologically a polar opposite to me) ask me to aide them with a particular issue. Perhaps because I have not edited in the subject area of an article in question, the hope I'll be neutral and/or they see me as a constructive supporter of NPOV and reliable sources. Examples of editor requests for assistance to me personally include (assist with Gun violence in the United States article),  (assist with Dysgenics,  (assist with a particular editor and related articles) as a recent examples. I routinely have been requested to also assist in a number of other articles such as Capitalism, Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, Ward Churchill, all articles that have a tendency to attract persons with strong POV's. I wouldn't always rate my efforts to mediate as successful, but no doubt, I have tried to help the major editors in these pages achieve some sort of balance...not once has there been an article Rfc or arbcom proceedings after I have helped those editors establish some balance to the articles. I have been involved in several Rfc's including one article Rfc, and several more I was a commentator on including an outside view here, and the same here for examples.

Questions from John Reid
1. Who are you?
 * I've been contributing steadily since January 2005, was made an administrator in November of the same year and wrote most of my 200+ article starts after I was made an admin. I am male and have a Masters in Anthropology, emphasis forensics/human osteology.

2. Are you 13? Are you 18?
 * Age is not really the best way to determine a person's ability to arbitrate fairly...I know plenty of 50 year olds who are still children. I have had a drivers license since the mid 1970's.

3. Should ArbCom arbitrate policy disputes or any other matter outside user conduct issues? Why or why not?
 * I am not convinced that ArbCom should be dealing with policy disputes at this time. But I can see arbcom rendering decisions about other matters aside from user conduct in very select circumstances. The net effect of some ArbCom decisions does occasionally influence policy in minor ways...or at the minimum, serve as a potential basis to amend existing policies...but I am not sure this has been incorporated aside from in vague terms. I am of the belief that our editors are generaly all interested in creating a fun, collaborative and educational online enyclopedia and trust that in the vast majority of situations, policy can be created, amended and improved through the consensus of the editors. I believe that allowing ArbCom to determine policy would be giving them too much power and take a lot of the fun and feeling of contribution away from the editors.

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. 08:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Lots of variables that come into play here since I am presented with only the blocking and the incivil comments. So my responses are based only on what you present. From Wheel war (a proposed policy) "Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it."
 * A was blocked, so no need to reblock again. Admonished to follow WP:CIVIL.
 * B was blocked, so no need to reblock again. Admonished to follow WP:CIVIL.
 * C is sanctioned for violating 0WW...desysopped. Permitted to reapply for adminship after 90 days. Admonished to follow WP:CIVIL. Blocked for 72 hours.
 * D is sanctioned for violating 0WW...desysopped. Permitted to reapply for adminship after 1 week. Admonished to follow WP:CIVIL. Blocked for 24 hours.
 * E is sanctioned for violating 0WW...possible desysop, more likely warning for not checking block log or AN.
 * F no penalty. Cautioned to not add fuel to the fire....week long block is excessive without consensus.
 * G is sanctioned for violating 0WW...desysopped. Permitted to reapply for adminship after 1 week.
 * H,J,K is based on proof that the discussions betweent them were held offwiki...if so, then:
 * H is sanctioned for violating 0WW...desysopped. Permitted to reapply for adminship after 90 days. Offwiki is not the place to determine consensus...Wikipedia discussion and user talk pages are.
 * J is sanctioned for supporting the violation of 0WW...Warned that offwiki is not the place to determine consensus.
 * K is sanctioned for supporting the violation of 0WW...Warned that offwiki is not the place to determine consensus.
 * M,N,P,Q are warned to follow WP:CIVIL. No penalities.

Question from Ragesoss
In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?
 * Both apply to all articles. Neutral point of view means that the evidence is presented in an unbiased, unemotional and even manner which is supported by reliable references that meet WP:V. When editors are in a situation whereby there is an opposing point of view, then one of the best ways to address the situation is to presnt both points of view, but care must be taken to divide the amount of coverage based on the undue weight clause of NPOV. Undue weight and the three principles of undue weight help to establish what does and what doesn't deserve to be discussed. There are times however, in articles that have a strong minority view, that "daughter" articles are written that simply don't deserve mention in the mainstream article. Care must be taken that these daughter articles are not simply violations of forking so that those that adhere to these minimally accepted POV's are not misusing Wikipedia for promotional or nonsense reasons. The scientific POV is much the same, and heavy adherence to the undue weight clause of NPOV is paramount when discussing any areas which may be rebutted.

Question from Giano
Members of the current Arbcom were recently openly discussing people involved in an Arbcom case on the IRC Admin's channel. What are your views on that, and  on Arbcom confidentiality. Giano 17:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not pleased to hear this, is how I feel about it. I won't condemn those that did this, as I actually have great faith in the current arbcom members and imagine that they had no malice intended in their conversations. I have never used IRC...I suppose I prefer to spend my time on wiki. I have no intention of ever using any IRC channel, unless I am told that I have to...but I know I wouldn't be discussing cases on IRC. I have mentioned in my responses here that the only time that I can see where decisions and discussions are to be conducted off wiki, using primarily the arbcom mailing list, is when evidence or material that needs to be kept confidential to protect one or more person's right to privacy, is being examined. I hope that as much as possible, discussions and determiniations about parties in a case can and will be provided an open forum on en.wiki. However, it's impossible, I believe, for arbitrators to discuss the entire case on en.wiki as this might create problems for those waiting to see the outcome, as I doubt that the final verdicts are made without some deliberations, some of which may be very argumentative. There are some things that should be protected such as one's right to privacy, but, aside from that, I hope to see more discussion and a more open forum on wiki, provided the discussions don't create anarchy. If one party came to me and said that they didn't like a discussion they were seeing and wanted it to be minimized, I would abide by this. If a party submits to arbcom certain information and or evidence that is important to a case, but wants it to be keept confidential, that is exactly what I would do.--MONGO 20:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You say above "I actually have great faith in the current arbcom members and imagine that they had no malice intended in their conversations" - So what would be your response if a future Arbcom colleague were to say or has said "If I was to make personal attacks, I would do them on IRC  which I control."  or do you believe a member of the current Arbcom would be incapable of such a statement? Giano 21:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks don't have to be tolerated anywhere...not on wiki, not on IRC and not on another website. Just based on your comment here, I hope that whoever stated this was either writing in jest, or this is/was only a momentary loss in judgement on their part.--MONGO 22:00, 12 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? 2. There may well arise cases where a dispute based on the inclusion of information whose accuracy is currently a point of seemingly reasonable controversy, possibly even bitter controversy, in that field of study. Should you encounter a case dealing with such information, and few if any of your colleagues on the committee were knowledgeable enough in the field for them to be people whose judgement in this matter could be completely relied upon, how do you think you would handle it?
 * I've been editing almost everyday, aside from a few weeks vacation, for almost two years, and at this time, I don't forsee that there will be any changes over the next few years that would take me away from being able to contribute to Wikipedia or the arbitration committee. There are unforseen events that might take me away from duties here of course, but they would have to grave in nature, and if not, my break would probably be temporary. Lastly, my hope is that no decision I make would make anyone bitter, or so upset that they view my efforts as an arbitrator to be unbeneficial to Wikipedia. If Jimbo Wales told me to leave, I would. I know that there is a great risk that some editors may feel they have been wronged by an arbcom decision, but there is about zero chance that this would drive me from Wikipedia...I might take a temporary break to let things cool off...but it would be probably a week or less. I'm an addict here you know. I am also thinking, (not to help me, but simply as a way to speed up the arbcom process), that what we need is about a 50% increase in the number of arbitrators. Doing this would ensure cases are attended to more speedily, and arbitrators would be better able to focus on specific cases in more detail.
 * That sounds more like a potential situation associated with a content dispute than one involving an analysis of whether someone has violated policies. I see that some nominees have stated that arbcom needs to get involved in determining content, and I don't agree overall with that. I think the editors are capable of working things out as far as content and the tools to do so are there for the most part. In the unlikely event that my probably well educated fellow arbtrators would be less educated on a specific issue than I am, I imagine I could do what I could to explain a technical issue to them, in a public manner, or we could certainly seek an expert in this, if one was available. A fellow editor of mine contacted an expert to assist me on determining the reliability of information I had obtained directly from a written source and from a phone call I made to verify information...the example I am discussing is about the number and acreage of glaciers found in a national forest. I myself was dubious that the federal information was factual...(more likely they were honest with me, just the actual data they had themselves is now very out of date). The expert contributed to a talk page discussion and helped clear up a lot of things, which ensured that my wording in the article itself was accurate.

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 13:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, in fact, I probably would do less administrative work, if elected to be an arbitrator, than I do now. I can't imagine giving up editing articles nor a circumstance in which I would want to stop editing. I try to assist everyone who asks directly and also help out with situations as presented in various notceboards. So long as the person requesting assistance isn't currently involved in any arbcom case, I would always be glad to assist them if I was capable.--MONGO 20:59, 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!) 14:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Over a year ago, I was on the wrong side of a a "project" WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit...which was originally named WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency. I accused several editors of good standing there of violating point, as well as other things. These editors included Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, Hipocrite and Zoe. I was wrong about their intentions and all three later opposed my nomination for admin a few months later, based in no small part on my actions on that project and my comments made to them. After I was made an admin, I worked to patch things up with all three editors. I soon was asked by Lulu to help protect the biograpy of living persons issues on the article Ward Churchill, and I soon asked him to assist with Retreat of glaciers since 1850. We now communicate via email and have found that our politics are much closer aligned than either of us originally suspected. Hipocrite needed help with some editors that were conspiring against him, and he and have subsequently both worked to protect each other from harassment. He worked hard during the more recent episodes I have had with attacks made by those who edit another website, and worked to protect me from harassment. Zoe has also been very supportive of me defending myself from harassment and I think we have found that in most cases, we are both on the same sides of arguments. I now consider all three of these editors my friends and hope they feel the same about me. I might add that Hipocrite is no longer editing the website due possibly to the stress of trying to defend me and harassment he recieved in the process from two or more editors who are now permabanned...going out of his/her way like that for someone who didn't exactly act decent to them at first is a fair demonstration of the rebuilding of trust.--MONGO 08:19, 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.
 * There are opportunities to make alterations and clarifications to cases even after they are "settled".. Should evidence arise that a decision needed amendments and or even major alterations, I would be glad to post such proposals to Motions in prior cases. Wiki is an ever changing entity, so part of the evolution of the website is the concept that nothing is ever completely written in stone, which in most cases, I support.--MONGO 08:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The best I could do would be to render such a decision as gently as possible. All I would be able to do in such a situation would be to present the rationale for the decision, ensure all parties understood that I respected that the decision would most likely be unpopular, and be willing to discuss the decision with anyone who felt slighted.--MONGO 08:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:V WP:BLP WP:NOT WP:NPOV WP:NOR WP:C WP:RS WP:N
 * Here, I feel that this is leaning towards a discussion regarding the role of arbitrators that applies to a content dispute...and I do not see arbitration being used as a manner to resolve content disputes. However, from a purely legal standpoint, WP:C and WP:BLP are at the top of my list since enforcement of these policies helps to protect the website from lawsuits. As far as the rest on your list, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:V help us to ensure we write articles that are without original research, maintain a neutral tone and are verifiable. WP:NOT helps us from having a website that is full of advertising or self promotion as well as other issues, WP:N simply helps define notablity. WP:RS should be made into policy, but only after we can come to an agreement was to what constitutes a reliable source. I suppose the manner I have listed them in my text is a representation of the order of importance, aside from WP:RS, which I actully believe is as important as anything else listed overall.--MONGO 08:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Ben Aveling
1. Which of the follow roles should arbcom members fulfil: judge, jury, executioner, detective, lawyer, psychoanalyst, teacher, leader, parole board, parole officer, weighing machine, opinion poll, weathervane, policeman, keeper of the vision, guardian of peace, visionary, psychic, nurse, other? 2. What would wikipedia lose if you were appointed to the ArbCom? 3. Is Wikipedia really an efficient way to create an encyclopedia? Regards, Ben Aveling 21:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Guardian of peace, leader, teacher and perhaps jury and judge sound like the only ones that fit in with what I see as the role as an arbitrator. I don't see the arbitrators as judges in a specific sense, but since their decisions are based on finding a consensus based on the evidence, there is deliberations which may lead to a verdict, much as a jury does, and then penalities based on policy may be then decided also based on consensus, much akin to judges. None of the rest of the "definitions" seem to fit my definition of the role of an arbitrator.
 * About the only thing they would lose is my contibutions as an admin on a somewhat regular basis. From time to time, I will go and handle speedy deletions, aide those that post to AN, AN/I and AIV. I would certianly do less RC patrol. I am confident that we have sufficient numbers of other admins that will easily fill my shoes in these areas. Now this doesn't mean I won't be continuing to help out should i become an arbtrator, it's just that due to a greater chance for a conflict of interest and that I would need to devote time to doing arbcom functions, I would have to substantially reduce my involvement as an administrator.
 * If nothing else, it's a grand experiment. The open to all editing very often leads to conflicts...but that is not a bad thing always, so long as civility can be maintained. The goal of thousands of featured articles is lofty, and not likely to become reality anytime soon. Dealing with trolling, POV pushing and other issues is a big interference if one is working on an article that attracts strong POV's...and that oftentimes makes it almost impossible to get an article to the featured level. I think the drive now should be to make our articles conform better with the guidleines and policies, ensuring they are referenced, gathering folks together in projects to go after articles in the scope of their projects that need attention, and to do all we can to make Wikipedia an enjoyable, harassment free experience. I believe that as time goes on, Wikipedia will find the ways to make their articles more respected as a factual and neutral source of information.

Questions by User:False Prophet
1. You were just involved in an Arbcomm case yourself. My question to you is how has this affected your view and position on the Arbcomm? 2. This is not quite related to Arbcomm, but because I want the Arbcomm to know all aspects of the Wiki. In the past few months, editors have "left the 'pedia" due to their unhappiness with the way the Community has treated them (the two that come to mind are User:Kelly Martin and User:GangstaEB). My question to you is what is your personal view on cases similar to this; and what, if anything, should the Arbcomm do about these problems, or similar problems due to RFA?
 * I don't have a beef with the current arbcom members in any way of course. That doesn't mean I "got" everything I wanted, but based on the evidence I presented as well as that presented by others, the wording in the case decisions probably is a fair reflection of the situation. Looking over many other cases, I believe that more should be done to neutralize disruptive editors, but a fair and firm approach is the best course of action.
 * Do you mean Requests for Adminship (RFA as posted above) or Requests for Arbitration (RFAr)? I assume you mean the latter, so all I can say is that arbcom needs to do all it can to help Wikipedians have a harassment free editing experience. My understanding about Kelly Martin is that she was in dispute with a number of editors and admins, including a few times myself, and that she offered to give up her adminship if there was a feeling that this would benefit the project. A strong consensus that she no longer be an admin resulted in her giving up her admin status and she has apparently left the project, at least that part of it I am involved in. I am not familiar with GangstaEB, but it appears he had two failed Rfa's and soon after the second one, he also left, though I did see he has made a few edits this month. Arbcom can only address the issues that are brought forth to it, and if there is evidence that a user is being chased off wiki, then that may be something that arbcom needs to look at...as this is a free resource, open to all who abide by our policies.

Question by User:Balla Laika
You have openly acknowledged that you are employed by the US Department of Homeland Security. Since being on the ArbComm will likely give you access to the CheckUser program you will have access to the IP addresses of at least some logged in users. It is Wikipedia policy not to turn over such information without a subpoena or court order. As an employee of the DHS what assurances can you give Wikipedians, particularly those who live outside of the US, that you will not be turning over IP addresses to the DHS or to other US government agencies if you think it is in the US government's interest for you to do so? Balla Laika 14:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I never said I worked for the "US Department of Homeland Security". I said I worked for USDHS. Stop reading encyclopedia dramatica and you won't have a problem with further misunderstandings. Checkuser is only used as needed and all those with checkuser rights know when each other have used the access...there is a system of checks and balances, you know. I can't imagine if I used checkuser for fradulant purposes that I would a.)be continued to have access to that user right, b.) remain an arbitrator, c.) remain an administrator, and d.) remain an unblocked contributor on this website for long. I have always protected those who have endured harassment...such editors as Musical Linguist, Katefan0 and Gator1 to name a few. Don't you think that I were a government plant, I would be smart enough to not ever reveil my employer? In the event that I was a government stooge, if I mistakenly blew my cover, why would I still be editing with the same username...think. My efforts are always in compliance with our privacy policies--MONGO 07:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * AFAIK the "US Department of Homeland Security" is the USDHS so I don't understand your objection, above. My concern isn't that you'll use CheckUser for fraudulent purposes but that in the case of legitimate CheckUser runs you may forward the IP numbers of user names of editors editing articles on, say, terrorism or Islam to the USDHS if they request it. The only way anyone would know that you did this is if either the USDHS or you announced that fact. You haven't actually answered my question, if your employers asked you to send some or all CheckUser data that came into your possession would you comply with their request or would you refuse as per Wikipedia policies on CheckUser?Balla Laika 23:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Now, see, if you weren't hiding your identity, then I wouldn't hide mine. USDHS has no idea I edit Wikipedia and my position with them is not one in which I do investigations, so no, I would never be asked to provide such intel and since this is seperate from my job, they can't legally expect me to provide them such info, anyway and I wouldn't give it to them. Not all the arbcom members have checkuser I don't think, and frankly, as I have stated in previous answers, I don't even care if I do get that access.
 * 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 23:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds like I'm talking with Daniel Brandt. Not all arbcom members have reveiled their real names, and even if they gave a name, what makes you think it is a real name? I bet if I gave my real name, the ED trolls would have it on the attack website article about me in 2 seconds. There is no requirement that arbcom members provide their real name.


 * Clarification please MONGO; you are saying that you work for a USDHS, but not the 'US Department of Homeland Security', some other USDHS? Regards, Ben Aveling
 * I'm actually saying that where I work is really no one's business. But since I am now communicating with someone that is using a real username, I actually haven't worked for the federal government since June of this year. My last day on the job was June 16, 2006. You can choose to believe that or not, anymore than anyone would believe me should I provide a "real name"...I am actually only worried should someone ask me what my SS# is, my address and my bank account numbers. I am completely non-notable, so if I gave my real name, it would google to people who aren't me! I was also previously employed by the NPS and what used to be known as INS. I hope to get a new position either with the NPS or the DCAA. I have never wanted to work for the FBI or the CIA, and even less the USPS. I used to think it would be nice to work for the USFWS or even the USFS, but I prefer the NPS since they are more preservation oriented. I have never been in the USA, USN, USMC, USAF, or even the USCG.--MONGO 07:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Statements like "I never said I worked for the "US Department of Homeland Security". I said I worked for USDHS." seem deliberately confusing, and make it difficult for others to assume good faith. If you wanted to tell us that where you work is nobody's business, why didn't you say so in the beginning?  While this discussion is somewhat moot, IMO, making vague and/or confusing remarks certainly isn't a good way to win votes.  Please answer questions more clearly. -- Anaraug 22:09, 6 December 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 comes first. If an administrator is abusing his sysop tools, then he should be desysopped. WP:NPA is poorly defined and what may appear as a PA to one, may not to another, so there are cases that are clear cut and cases that aren't. Strict discipline is necessary when dealing with obvious trolling accounts, but other editors should be allowed to "vent" somewhat unless this become disruptive. About all I can do as an arbitrator is to propose either desysopping, limiting admin tool usage or no penalties, based on the evidence provided. If there is a pattern of abuse, then a desysopping would be expected.--MONGO 07:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Carcharoth
I have been perusing the block logs of candidates in these elections. Do you think looking at past incidents and disputes documented in a block log are a good way of assessing a candidate? Carcharoth 00:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I definitely think so. I won't argue off my blocks but will explain them. Looking at my block log here, the most recent block was for 3RR which if looked at in a hardcore manner was indeed a 3RR violation, however, User:JoshuaZ added the comment that I hadn't actually done a violation since one of the diffs was for a completely different edit, albeit on the same article. The block by User:Kelly Martin was not well received by the community but was for a post I made on another editors page which she saw as "starting a forest fire". She was asked about it much later, said it wasn't possibly the best thing for her to do and I hold no grudge against her at all. The block from June 2005 was for a legitmate 3RR violation.--MONGO 13:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Seabhcan
How would you deal with and admin, who on being called to AN/I to request more civil behaviour, stated "I offer no apology and I offer no respite and intend to insult you and others"? Do you think such an admin is a suitable candidate for the Arbitration Committee? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney  (Hows my driving?)  14:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that all efforts to ensure that conspiracy theory nonsense is minimized should be implemented to save wikipedia from looking like an unreliable source. Civility is paramount, but the integrity of the resource is more so. Those who are here to promote conspiracy theory nonsense over the known evidence should either find more productive ways of spending their time, or leave the project. No doubt I was incivil in that comment you linked, and should have been warned when I made it, six months ago. As to whether such comments are becoming an arbitrator, maybe not, especially if there are taken out of context. Interestingly, that same editor I made that comment to worked collaboratively with me in getting Redwood National and State Parks to featured article level, since that discussion you link. Demostration of my ability and his to work to resolve differences and later work collaboratively to achieve something that is fact based.--MONGO 19:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * RE: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents
 * You seem to be suggesting that incivility is permitted if you disagree with an editor sufficiently. Perhaps you can also explain your recent treat to block indefinitely User:SalvNaut for playfully suggesting that User:Tbeatty misuse use of the logical principle Occam's razor may "cut something important.". You left a note on SalvNaut's talk page warning against "suggesting bodily harm". Can you also explain why it took a lengthy AN/I discussion to change your mind? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney  (Hows my driving?)  19:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not what I am suggesting at all as I stated I should have been warned six months ago when I made that comment. User:SalvNaut called User:Tbeatty a liar. Tbeatty responded that he didn't want to be called a liar again, and as part of his comments, mentioned that Occam's Razor was useful when dealing with conspiracy theory issues. SalvNaut's next response was to twist the use of Occam's Razor into what I saw as an indifference as to whether Tbeatty were to injure himself with a razor. It's not like SalvNaut hasn't made other comments recently which have been insulting: "this last post...this is one of the most embarrasing entries in Wikipedia I've ever encountered. ...If this can be explained by some kind of mental illness, it is great news, treatment is possible, then.". The talkpages of articles such as that are heated enough without someone even insinuating anything about personal injury. My original comments to indef block SalvNaut were poor ones, I altered them to mention I may still block him, and after there was no consensus for any block at all, I retracted my comment that I would block that editor. I still perceive that SalvNaut's comment was one in which he was suggesting an indifference to bodily harm to Tbeatty, due to the general hostility that all conspiracy theorists have when they are confronted by those who don't appreciate Wikipedia being used to promote nonsense.--MONGO 20:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Localzuk
You state above that you believe the policy on personal attacks is not clearly defined. Could you expand on this a bit? -Localzuk(talk) 21:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like to see more specific examples that clearly distinguish what are and what aren't personal attacks. For instance, putting the death threats and threats of physical harm in with far less severe examples is wrong. We normally block anyone indefinitely for making a death threat, but we rarely block more than 24 hours for a couple comments like calling someone else an idiot...unless they do this on a constant basis. Basically, the policy needs to have a set valuation for what the expected penalty is for levels of PA's and for the repeated violations.--MONGO 05:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from User:Thomas Basboll
Your opinion of conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists is well known, and you have emphasised it above. You even go so far as to make a statement about "all conspiracy theorists". How do you identify a conspiracy theorist (i.e., what do those words mean to you)? Would you recuse yourself from cases involving conspiracy theories or a conspiracy theorist?--Thomas Basboll 12:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Anything that came to arbcom that dealt with contributors that I have worked with or disagreed with in articles I have worked on, would be an automatic recuse for me. That would include persons I have been engaged with on articles related to the events of 9/11/2001. My thoughts on conspiracy theorists are that they support the imagined, undercover, secret and clandestine efforts of some unconfirmable and unprovable covert entity as being the masterminds behind events. I feel that for many, it is more comfortable for them and provides a stronger feeling of protection, to believe that only a huge coverup by the U.S. Government or entities of a high level within that government, could pull off a massive event such as 9/11. That less than 20 persons hijacking planes could do so much damage is likely unsettling for many. Many who believe in the conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 also have a strong distaste for the current U.S. administration, have grave disagreements with some of the actions performed by that executive branch since 9/11, and allow that distaste to taint their objectivity when presented with the known facts regarding 9/11.--MONGO 18:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Take a more hypothetical case. How would you spot a conspiracy theorist you had not previously dealt with or who was not working on an article that you have worked on? And if you did spot one, would your identification of an editor as a "conspiracy theorist" alone lead you to recuse yourself? Would you knowingly arbitrate a case involving conspiracy theories or a conspiracy theorist?--Thomas Basboll 21:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have long viewed that the role of the arbitration committee was to examine conduct, not content. For editors who may or may not be advancing a conspiracy theory in some field, that is far less an issue than if they are doing so either in a disruptive manner, or if they are attacking those that oppose him/her. There are some persons who do nothing but try and discuss the issues related to conspiracy theories...but they do so without being too disruptive and conversation shouldn't be eliminated from opposing voices. As with all arbcom cases, the arguments are presented why the case needs to be arbitrated, and I would have the opportunity to examine the major arguments of the case, before accepting it, or recusing. Hopefully, if indeed the argument in support of taking the case is strong, those doing so would demonstrate if we are dealing with conspiracy theory issues, and I would probably not be involved...and never would if it involved the issues surrounding editors working on the 9/11 articles.

Thank you. That's a good answer. After all, you are not likely to be dealing with perfectly well-behaved conspiracy theorists in an arbcom case. It would have been more comforting if you had not used that "probably", but I'll take what I can get. (I can't get you to commit yourself to the proposition that "If we are dealing with conspiracy theory issues, or someone I think is a conspiracy theorist, I would not be involved", can I?) The last part, of course, goes without saying.--Thomas Basboll 21:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, the issues that arbitrators deal with are obvious signals of admin abuse, disruptive editors and other areas that center around conduct. I have stated unlike some nominees that I do not think that arbitration is the way to solve content disputes as I have faith in the editors to properly apply existing policies and reach an appropriate concensus for what should and what shouldn't be in an article. I imagine my chances of being involved in a case where conspiracy theories are the focus of an editor in dispute, to be very slim.

I think we're talking at cross purposes. I appreciate your position on conduct/content. My concern is whether you will arbitrate a case where any of the parties are believed by you to be a conspiracy theorist. The reason I am concerned is that you have as much as stated that you find it difficult, perhaps impossible, to respect their POV.--Thomas Basboll 07:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I find it difficult if not impossible to agree with the POV of the conspiracy theorists that perpetuate myths regarding the events of 9/11...there are no other conspiracy theories I am concerned about. For instance, the Kennedy assassination...the "official" story supports a lone gunman, and the conspiracy theory suggests multiple gunmen. In that case, I don't completely agree with the official story, but accept it since there has been no conclusive proof that it is wrong. Can you give me some examples so I can better judge a final answer for you. Not to beat around the bush, but again, I already stated that I would recuse if anything or anyone who I have dealt with in any way on the articles related to 9/11, were to be involved in an arbitration case.

As I read your remarks, you find it impossible to respect (not just impossible to agree with the views of) editors who have a conpiratorial view of history. (I.e., who believe that the causes of historical events are hidden in "back rooms" and "secret meetings" of one kind or another and that the mainstream version of events is an elaborate hoax.) So a related question arises: what is your take on the difference between respecting someone's POV and agreeing with it?

JFK is a good example. So is the OKC bombing. Would you arbitrate a case involving someone you knew believed that these events were orchestrated by a shadowy network of secret operatives, not misguided loners? I ask because I think your impulse is to think that such people are simply nuts. That impulse should lead you to recuse yourself.--Thomas Basboll 08:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In the context you put it, I would have to recuse. About all else I can say on this matter is that if I saw a content dispute come to arbcom, I would reject it. If other arbitrators accepted it, I would recuse. I don't think arbcom should be involved in settling content disputes. I respect the right of people to have a POV, but think to be neutral, we have to do all we can to leave that at the curb when we edit in article space. I don't see Wikipedia as an encounter group...the sole reason Wikipedia exists is to create encyclopedia articles.

Question from Dfrg.msc
In one sentence, what will you bring to the Arbitration Committee? Dfrg.m s c 1. 2 . Editor Review 23:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Measured, fair and firm resolutions which will ensure that our efforts to write encyclopedia articles aren't compromised by those who are unwilling or unable to work cooperatively and tactfully in this collaborative effort.--MONGO 05:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Additional questions from Anomo
I have seen where there is heated debate and someone they will archve the entire talk page of an article, including discussions hours old (sometimes minutes), just say archiving and the talk page is empty. This seems to be growing in popularity. What is your view on it? Anomo 03:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If there is a current discussion ongoing and is less than a day old, then arching that is unwise. I have archived discussions that were only one or two days old if they looked like the argument was concluded. Some discussion pages are huge and get many comments everyday and need to be archived frequently. If you could give me some examples where a talk page was archived in the middle of an ongoing discussion, I might be better able to judge whether it was done maliciously.--MONGO 05:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There was an article about a notable person and that famous person also happens to edit Wikipedia and their article self identified as that person. Well a lot of people were arguing in talk and an admin archived the whole thing blanking it and then told one person (not the person whose bio it was about) that they were being uncivil. It was more detailed than that, but that's all I can recollect. Anomo 18:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I need "diffs" and or the name of the article plus when this archiving occurred. Could have been that there was a violation of WP:BLP going on. If can provide me with the example in evidence, then I can examine and let you know what I think.--MONGO 18:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Question from User:Mad Hunger
I find your extreme anti-Muslim views that you have made on your blog unsettling. For instance, , , ,

Wikipedia is an international project not just an American one. Given the amount of prejudice you have expressed how can we be sure that you will be fair to any self-identified Muslims who are brought before ArbComm? Mad Hunger 04:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not my blog...I don't have a blog. Whoever that guy is he has serious problems...why not ask him about his views on his problems there rather than coming here and attempting to connect me with some jerk who lives in another state and is a good dozen years older than I am. One of my best friends is a practicing Moslem born and raised in the Sudan. Gee, you must be reading that stuff on encyclopedia dramatica.--MONGO 05:25, 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 20:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am recusing from asking any questions of other candidates or voting for anyone, including myself. However, that is just the way I am going to handle it, and if others wish to do otherwise, that's up to them. If other candidates wish to beome involved in any discussions on my voting page, they should know that they are welcome to do so. I don't think I am "running against" anyone and see that there are a large number of nominees who are probably better suited for the position than I am.--MONGO 05:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)