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

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?


 * Oh dear... Apologize, and then do whatever I could to remedy it... I don't know what you're asking besides that. You can't have a situation where people believe the Arbcom's completely unwilling to change its mind.

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


 * Easy answer: I wouldn't. I would have to be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that I was right, something which doesn't happen too awful much. Generally, if the WP community is mostly behind something, they ought to get their way. (I guess it depends what "en masse" means... 3/5? 4/5? 99%?) But if I KNEW I was right, I guess I'd say my decision, give all my reasons, and say something like "I know you may disagree with me, but you elected me for a reason. Here it is." Honestly, what else can you do?

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

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


 * Oh, this is a good one. [[Image:smiley.png|20px]] WP:C has to be #1... we must first be legal. WP:NPOV has to be next... I could live without the others, but we must be fair. WP:V is next, WP:RS is right under it, and those are all the really really really important ones. WP:NOR follows, but honestly is kinda redundant (it ought to be covered under WP:RS--obviously, "myself" isn't a reliable source!) After a long drop, WP:NOT is next, then WP:N... I'd rather have a bunch of correct, unbiased, unimportant info that important info that's biased/untrue. At the bottom is the extraordinarily redundant WP:BLP, because it basically says "follow guidelines for living people". Umm, duh. =P Thanks for your questions! Matt Yeager  ♫  (Talk? ) 00:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Ragesoss
In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?


 * We have to be careful what we call "scientific". Who decides what "scientific" is? I think it's fairly safe to stick with NPOV. It's an easily lampoon-able policy, but in practice, honestly, it hasn't given us much trouble. Think of all the huge content wars, debates, firestorms... none of them have been based on NPOV, which has been followed pretty faithfully throughout the 'pedia. That's a pretty good sign in my book. Thanks for your question! Matt Yeager  ♫  (Talk? ) 00:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Mailer Diablo
1. Express in a short paragraph, using any particular issue/incident that you feel strongly about (or lack thereof) in the past, on why editors must understand the importance of the ArbCom elections and making wise, informed decisions when they vote.
 * Here's the question regarding the editors: do you like how things are run on Wikipedia? Do you like the userbox turmoil and its resolution (if we can call it that)... or the policies we have in place? If so, there are many fine editors who will uphold the status quo... well, that's an insult to them. Many of these guys and gals would be an improvement, clearly, but things will be kept mostly the same. Other candidates run on change. I mean, I hated the way the whole userbox thing happened. I hated it! Trust me, if I had any sort of power, issues like that would be quickly dealt with. Then at least people would have something to debate over. If people want an Arbcom like that... well then, they'd better vote.

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?
 * WP:RFA. I know that's not technically a policy, but I'm counting it as one. Nominations should be so much easier to win then they are. Saying "you need 75%-ish" is a slap in the face to WP:AGF. I'd let about thirty extremely well-trusted editors have the power to veto nominations (by something like a 60% majority), but otherwise, I'd let anyone who'd edited for 6 months and gotten, say, 1500 edits to be an administrator automatically. (Punishments (like involuntary desysops) would be harsher, of course, to correspond to more administators.)

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 personally doubt I would receive either of these powers. I would have little need for either, and I wouldn't want the abuses (or, more to the point, the suggestions of abuse) that come along with them. But yes, I know what they both are and would willingly undertake CU, at least, if I were given it and would help users as best I could. I would feel uncomfortable with Oversight, to be honest.

4. What is integrity, accountability and transparency to you on the ArbCom?
 * Transparency's easy. The Arbcom's doing a fantastic job on that regard. Accountability? I think the terms are a little long, and I wouldn't argue with cutting the length in half for each. But hey, it's not like Arbcom members are unblockable if they get a little out of hand. ;) Integrity... Recusals are vital. If you know someone, don't arbitrate their case! Past that, there's not a lot you can do. The important thing is for arbitrators to be people of integrity. We don't have an "integrity judge" at Wikipedia. ;)

5. Humour, a tradition of Wikipedian culture, has seen through several controversies in recent history. This is including but not limited to bad jokes and other deleted nonsense, parody policies/essays, April Fools' Day, whole userpages, userboxes... Do you think that they are all just harmless fun, or that they are all nonsense that must go?
 * I'd lean towards harmless fun, at least on non-mainspace (and templates that aren't used in the mainspace) pages. The jokes that vandalize the mainspace pages are a problem, but on the list of "Wikipedia's Top 100 Problems", I don't see parodies/April Fools' jokes being on the top 10, or even the top 50 (after all, they're very easily reversible). We've got bigger fish to fry. Thanks for the questions! Matt Yeager  ♫  (Talk? ) 00:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Spartaz
Why do you think that admins who transgress only get a slap on the wrist when involuntary desysoppings by the arbcom are at an all time high? Spartaz 14:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, forced Cabinet resignations by the Bush Administration are at an all-time high, too, but that doesn't mean there's not a bigger problem. I dislike how admins basically never get more than a de-sysopping (where are the bans?), and honestly, admins ought to be held to a higher standard. They talk the talk, but often in Arbcom hearings, one feels the sentiment "So-and-so may have been careless or reckless or done something wrong, but that's administrative privilege". That's dead wrong, and I'm saying that ANY transgression involving admin powers needs to be dealt with... no more "you blocked someone who you were in a content disagreement with, but you're my buddy and a 'trusted (by me) admin', so ... stay away from content disputes, okay?" Did that help make it clear? Thanks for the question! Matt Yeager  ♫  (Talk? ) 00:03, 18 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?


 * Hmm... If schoolwork gets too crazy, I might have to take a leave of absence for a while, but I can't see myself having so little free time that I'd have to resign my position. I'd very much try to keep up with it--getting voted in as an arbitrator is a serious deal, and you shouldn't ignore the will of the people by walking out on it without taking it VERY seriously. As for a community uproar... well, if the community resoundingly denounced a decision I made, and I believed it was the right one, I might resign on the grounds that I was no longer acting as a representative of the people. Uproar is never good when you're trying to write an encyclopedia.

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? Badbilltucker 18:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I'm getting what you're saying. In such a situation, I suppose I would tread very lightly. Let the information remain, with disclaimers (well, not ACTUAL disclaimers, but the sort which says "some scientific research appears to suggest that XYZ")... It's not an arbitrator's job to determine the validity of content, it's their job to determine NPOV compliance. If something's NPOV (and editors invloved are assuming good faith, etc.), it's not any of the committee's business to interfere. (Oh, and thanks for asking the questions!) <font color="#DF0001">Matt Yeager  <font size="3" color="#B46611">♫  <font color="#00AA88">(<font color="#00AA88">Talk? ) 05:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Carnildo
ArbCom is a big job. How many hours a week do you think you'll be able to spend on it?


 * Probably somewhere from 5-10, perhaps more, depending on the workload. Thanks for the question! <font color="#DF0001">Matt Yeager  <font size="3" color="#B46611">♫  <font color="#00AA88">(<font color="#00AA88">Talk? ) 03:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Sugaar
How would you deal with abuse of authority by administrators, meaning by this application of blocks as punitive measures and use of blocks in unclear PA cases, as per WP:BLOCK. Would you protect the sysop no matter what or would you defend policy above all? In other words, what do you consider more important: strict discipline or strict application of policy? Thanks.


 * Blocks are a serious business. 99% of the time, they're clear, obvious, good-for-you blocks, but if an admin blocks in an unclear PA case, without warning, I think that that's worthy of a probation in most cases (obviously, the particulars of any case would determine an appropriate recourse). You have to give warnings. If someone goes on AFTER being warned, well, I would definitely grant the admin more leeway (but if it's a clearly inappropriate block, it's still wrong no matter how many warnings are given, of course). That doesn't really answer the question, I know, but it's tough to see what exactly you're asking. Thanks for making me think, though. <font color="#DF0001">Matt Yeager  <font size="3" color="#B46611">♫  <font color="#00AA88">(<font color="#00AA88">Talk? ) 00:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from maclean
1. Do you have dispute resolution experience in any of the following areas: Mediation Committee, Mediation Cabal, Third opinion, Requests for comment, or Association of Members' Advocates? If not successful with the Arbitration Committee, will you seek a position with the Mediation Committee?


 * Thankfully, I can answer "none of the above"... I have never had a conflict personally that escalated beyond the talk page of the article in question (as well as our user talk pages), and all of them have been solved to some degree of satisfaction. For that reason... I don't know about the Mediation Committee, for a simple reason--anyone who is so entrenched in a position that they won't listen to their "opponents" in a normal discussion isn't likely to go to Mediation. Mediation is for level-minded people, and for that the committee requires a great amount of patience and knowledge of tight situations... and honestly, if it's a subject I know a lot about, I often already know all about the fight. =/

2. In a question above you mention that you disliked how the userbox incident was handled. What lessons should be learned from that experience?


 * First, actions need to happen a LOT quicker in chaotic cases like this--Wikipedia's best amd brightest did almost nothing productive for months because of this. Better to get some closure ASAP, I believe. Second, the single most serious offense on Wikipedia is misuse of powers. Anyone who deletes a whole bunch of pages--pages that actual human beings had spent quite a lot of time on--without prior discussion should not get off scot-free. And this applies to all people, of course... a willful, egregious misuse of your powers ought to result in the elimination of those powers. Right?


 * Thanks for the questions. <font color="#DF0001">Matt Yeager  <font size="3" color="#B46611">♫  <font color="#00AA88">(<font color="#00AA88">Talk? ) 00:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

<font color="#DF0001">Matt Yeager  <font size="3" color="#B46611">♫  <font color="#00AA88">(<font color="#00AA88">Talk? ) 22:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)'' <font color="#DF0001">Matt Yeager  <font size="3" color="#B46611">♫  <font color="#00AA88">(<font color="#00AA88">Talk? ) 00:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Anomo
1. Do you think there should be an age requirement for ArbCom? Anomo 12:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Nah, if you're old enough to edit Wikipedia, you're old enough to run. RUN, not be elected... it would take an incredible thirteen-year-old, say, to be an arbcom member, but if enough people support them, why not?

2. I have read on several websites (they even gave links to block logs) of Wikipedia admins who do things like indefinitely blocking accounts who have not edited for months, there was no CheckUser anything, no reports, and the admin didn't give any reason, just put personal attacks as the block reason (e.g. saying "troll"). Basically such cases seem done beyond punative, but just out of bullying. I saw at least ten of these, but so far I can only find one here. I don't feel like digging for hours, as I just want to ask your opinion of whether you support or oppose such admin activity because it's clear most support it. Anomo 12:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Everyone ought to be able to defend every block they make, right? Indefinite blocks should NEVER be used lightly. I can't see any reason why an inactive account ought to ever receive any ban. That said, would I support punishments for it? Not beyond a slap on the wrist.

3. What is your view on the current policy often called "kicking them while they're down" of deleting the user and talk pages of people who are blocked? Anomo 12:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have a pleasant opinion on that. Unless a page violates copyright, leave it be. But it's not a serious offense on its own.

4. What is your view on the practice on Wikipedia where a person blanks out text on talk pages because the text mentioned something wrong the person did or defeated them in an argument? The text blanked usually has no reason given. When there is a reason given, it's only a fake reason. In rare cases, the text is not blanked, but the entire talk page is archived including discussions hours old, blanking it out. Anomo 12:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's very understandable... should it be done? Of course not. Do I understand and sympathize with those who do it? Of course. Is it punishable? Again, I wouldn't give more than a slap on the wrist for a first offense.

5. What is your view on the frequent practice of locking the talk page of someone who is banned to avoid communication with them? Anomo 12:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I can accept that... Frankly, I don't have a strong opinion on it, and the problem with all these questions is that there's no policy on most of them and the Arbcom shouldn't be legislating from the bench.

6. Why do you feel in the past when in a conflict in ArbCom between non-admins and administrators that ArbCom has always sided with the admins? Anomo 12:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not always, but generally (and not necessarily SIDING with them; often it's simply unbalanced punishments). For just one example... remember the pedophilia wheel war? Which users were the only ones to receive actual bans? Not the admin who blocked three good-faith administrators... not the admin who wheel warred with Jimbo Wales... not the admin who was blocked, and then upon being unblocked, proceeded to block the admin who'd blocked him... no, the only ones that were blocked were the two non-administrators, who (as far as I can see) did very little (a couple of joke templates apiece). You could probably look around and find more. <font color="#DF0001">Matt Yeager  <font size="3" color="#B46611">♫  <font color="#00AA88">(<font color="#00AA88">Talk? ) 22:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC) (Thanks for asking the questions!)

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?) :-)


 * 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?


 * Does Arbcom have this power? Umm, if it doesn't, then what's the alternative? I'd say it must have this power, because nobody else does (besides Jimbo, I suppose, but anytime you have to bring Jimbo into an argument, that's a bad sign). I'll get to the other questions later. ;) <font color="#DF0001">Matt Yeager  <font size="3" color="#B46611">♫  <font color="#00AA88">(<font color="#00AA88">Talk? ) 22:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 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?


 * Who else does? If there were some way of "voting out" bureaucrats, some way of making them accountable, that'd be one thing, but as it stands, there's no one watching over them. Someone ought to make a policy regarding this, but until then, I guess the Arbcom has to take this power by default. I would be extraordinarily careful and reluctant to use such a power, though.


 * 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?


 * In a perfect world... of course not, all should be treated equally. But being the pragmatic person that I am, naturally you give SOME benefit of the doubt, especially for a single offense that the user apologizes for. (The benefit only goes so far, of course.)


 * 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.


 * Article writing is much more important, and it's not even close to being close. Good grief, Wikipedia's an encyclopedia, not an administration. No weaseling here. But in the example you offer, you should treat them equally. The point is that the two are both established members of the Wikipedia who have done bad things, and if the bad things are equal, so then should the punishment be.


 * 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.)


 * This one's fairly easy, as well. I'm sorry to disappoint you. ;) The infamous Pedophilia war... I understand the great strain placed on everyone involved, but to be very honest, the level of favoritism shown to the admins, particularily two of them (User:MarkSweep, who displayed a shocking disregard for WP:AGF--"In the case of genuine trolling, it makes no sense to me personally to go through TfD, because that will make the trolls very very happy indeed"--while daring to use that very same policy to defend his actions... and then of course User:David Gerard, who deleted the userbox out of process and put up a protected blank page in its stead) who not only weren't punished, but didn't even receive a slap on the wrist. Ridiculous. (So, no rubber stamp here. ;P)


 * 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?


 * He's good at it and seems to enjoy it (or at least loathe it the least)... I don't think it's right or wrong. It's not like his statements are any more or less powerful than anyone else's, just because he's made more... This is a non-issue in my mind; however, IF I get elected (though your confidence is flattering =P) I plan on writing a fair few remedies and findings of fact, myself.

AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 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?


 * Not applicable. Thanks for these questions... they were truly worthwhile, I appreciate the time you spent on them. [[Image:smiley.png|20px]] <font color="#DF0001">Matt Yeager  <font size="3" color="#B46611">♫  <font color="#00AA88">(<font color="#00AA88">Talk? ) 01:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Dfrg.msc
In one sentence, what will you bring to the Arbitration Committee? Dfrg.m s c 1. 2 . Editor Review 23:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would bring an outside view. Thanks! <font color="#DF0001">Matt Yeager  <font size="3" color="#B46611">♫  <font color="#00AA88">(<font color="#00AA88">Talk? ) 23:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Voting in the elections
Hello, the ArbCom elections are coming up very soon and I was wondering if you would give your public assurance not to vote or comment on other candidates. I think this will help keep friction to a minimum. Imagine how ugly it would be if two people who vehemently publicly attacked and opposed each other both ended up sitting on the ArbCom together. I think, in the best interests of decorum, these kind of conflict of interest issues should be avoided. Do you agree? --<font color="#ff66ff">Cyde Weys 20:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops, too late. I decided that (except in one rather plain case that I felt was kinda important--and I respect the guy as an editor, anyway) I would only vote "support" and leave all the candidates I didn't like alone. Your point's still valid, but I think I'm being and that I will be careful enough for my voting not to lead to problems. Here's hoping. <font color="#DF0001">Matt Yeager  <font size="3" color="#B46611">♫  <font color="#00AA88">(<font color="#00AA88">Talk? ) 23:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Zouavman Le Zouave
Hi, here are my questions ^^


 * 1) What are your musical tastes? Who are your favorite artists? What genres do you prefer? What sub-genres do you prefer?


 * Most stuff... modern rock, I suppose, is my favorite style of music, especially Christian. I love Taking Back Sunday, matchbox twenty, Collective Soul, Falling Up, Jars of Clay...


 * 1) How much do you know about music? Do you play any instruments? Do you read music?


 * A decent bit. I played a lot of jazz piano a few years back... Currently, I play xylophone in Kamiakin High School's marching band. And I do read music, though my sight-reading is definitely not the greatest.


 * 1) What would be your musical philosophy? How do you describe good music in a general way?


 * I don't have a great philosophy... but if something sounds good, it's music, and if something sounds very good, it's good music. And if we have to define "good", we're in a lot of trouble. ;)


 * 1) What are the things you wouldn't call music?


 * Carrots, apples, and any noises that don't really sound nice.


 * 1) What artists/genres/sub-genres do you despise the most?


 * Gah. Mostly, it's shaped by the music my sister likes... which I mean in the best possible way. Avril Lavigne's first album and "Concrete Angel" by Martina McBride are the absolute worse excuses for music I've ever had the pain of having my ears be subjected to. Other than that... I don't like slow jazz music, I guess.

Thank you in advance for answering these questions.

--Zouavman Le Zouave 21:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking them! <font color="#DF0001">Matt Yeager  <font size="3" color="#B46611">♫  <font color="#00AA88">(<font color="#00AA88">Talk? ) 23:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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


 * My reasons for this question are three-fold.


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


 * I'll still edit the encyclopedia and respect Arbcom decisions.

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


 * Most of them are happy and good. I'm glad with how most of the votes are going... the ones that aren't, I kind of expected to go badly... the ones that aren't running I expected not to. Banners on userpages? Why not? My "campaign"? It was fun. I was asked fewer questions than anyone else... I guess that's my claim to fame. :)

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


 * Lots of things. If you want to go to my RFA logs, you'll find several examples referenced. ;)

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


 * I have in a lot of cases already. If I ever was an a-hole to anyone, which is quite likely... I'm sorry. Please forgive me. :)

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


 * Shoot for a revamp of RFA and get some real administrator oversight.

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


 * Keeping certain things the way they ought to be (one public example is my fight to keep Washington at Washington) and googling up things like "running up the score" and seeing an article I wrote come up. Making an article look better by fixing spacing or misspellings. These are all really happy feelings. :) Thanks for the questions. <font color="#DF0001">Matt Yeager  <font size="3" color="#B46611">♫  <font color="#00AA88">(<font color="#00AA88">Talk? ) 21:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions from LoveLight
Would you kindly evaluate and/or comment article 911. As a reader do you find that piece factual and accurate? As an editor do you find it satisfying (with regards to our fundamental Wiki policies and guidelines)? As future arbitrator how do you feel about status quo imposed on that and similar "ever burning" editorials? Lovelight 10:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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