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

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.
 * As the ArbCom has been given the authority to make binding decisions on issues (with oversight from Jimbo and the Board), it's very important to make sure those who are placed in that position of trust and authority be very level-headed, civil in their dealings, and generally beyond reproach. The ArbCom must consist of editors that can be relied on to make decisions based on existing policy, similar to a "supreme court of Wikipedia" if you will. They should allow general consensus, however, to make changes and adjustments to that policy, provided those changes and adjustments don't break any other existing policies. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  17:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Imagine. Say Jimbo grants you the authority to make, or abolish one policy with immediate and permanent effect, assuming no other limitations, no questions asked. What would that be?
 * The only one that strikes me is the Fair use criteria #1, which I would change to something along the lines of "It is always more desirable to use a free image, and if one is available, it should always be used rather than a fair use image. However, use of a fair use image until that time is acceptable as long as the appropriate licensing information is included when uploading the fair use image." We are here to build an encyclopedia, and there are instances where it is impossible (or nearly so) to obtain a free image. I believe that in these cases, use of fair use images should be allowed. The current policy is too vague in that it disallows fair use images in cases where there could, maybe, possibly, by some remote chance, be a free image. This is far too nebulous in my opinion, and tends toward removing legitimate fair use in cases where the likelihood of obtaining a free image is remote to none. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  17:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

3. It is expected that some successful candidates will receive checkuser and oversight privileges. Have you read and understood foundation policies regulating these privileges, and able to help out fellow Wikipedians on avenues (e.g. WP:RFCU) in a timely manner should you be granted either or both of them?
 * The oversight privilege is fairly straightforward. Checkuser, by design, is a little nebulous to those who don't have that privilege in order to keep people from finding tricky ways around it. I have, on other sites, dealt with tracking down multiple accounts used by the same person, so I have some experience with that. If I was granted the privilege, I would be able to come up to speed fairly quickly, I believe, based on my previous experience with similar situations. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  17:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

4. What is integrity, accountability and transparency to you on the ArbCom?
 * All members of ArbCom should always act in a manner that doesn't cast doubt on their ability to be fair and impartial in all cases. They should also be able to clearly explain their decisions in such a way that the reasons for a specific action can clearly be traced back to one or more of the various policies and guidelines on Wikipedia. If an ArbCom member is found to be breaking one or more policies, they should have to answer for the reasoning behind their actions, and appropriate action should be taken. While given more authority and abilities, members of ArbCom are ultimately the same as any other editor on Wikipedia, and therefore bound to follow all the same policies and guidelines as any other editor. However, as Uncle Ben said, "With great power comes great responsibility," and I believe that is the case here. ArbCom members should set an example for all other editors in the way they interact with everyone else on the site: they should always be respectful, willing to accept constructive criticism, and willing to admit fault and take corrective action. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  17:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

5. Humour, a tradition of Wikipedian culture, has seen through several controversies in recent history. This is including but not limited to bad jokes and other deleted nonsense, parody policies/essays, April Fools' Day, whole userpages, userboxes... Do you think that they are all just harmless fun, or that they are all nonsense that must go?
 * I think humor is an important factor in any society (I believe Wikipedia is a society of sorts), and it should be tolerated as long as it doesn't get out of hand. A balance must be maintained between allowing people to have a little fun, and making sure the fun doesn't begin to break down the fabric of the work we are all doing here. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk  to Nihonjo e  17:39, 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.


 * I think there needs to be a balance of both. While following the letter of the policy in most cases is fine, there are some cases where the spirit, or original intent, of the policy needs to be used instead (this can usually be determined by reading the discussions leading up to that particular policy being instated). I dislike taking one extreme or the other in all cases, and think that a better result overall is achieved when a good balance is achieved and maintained. In cases of abuse where the facts are a little unclear, I would seek the counsel of the other ArbCom members and work to come to a clear understanding of the situation before taking appropriate action. For any situation such as this, it's very important to do the necessary research to gain a full understanding of the facts so that a fair decision can be reached. I would never defend a sysop just because s/he was a sysop. As has been said by many others on Wikipedia, a sysop is just the same as any other editor but with a couple more buttons to use. All editors on Wikipedia need to follow the policies here. I believe each situation is going to be different, and therefore must be approached in a manner appropriate to that situation. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  20:50, 21 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?


 * I'm assuming you are asking about an instance where I have made an error in judgement, so that's how I'm answering the question. If I'm mistaken, please clarify and I'll be happy to provide an additional response.


 * I would examine the facts, and if I was incorrect, I'd take the necessary steps to correct it. All of us are human (to my knowledge), and we all make mistakes—myself included. Unless a person can accept a mistake, learn from it, and move on, there is nothing to be gained by the situation. I'm always looking to learn from my experiences, and then make improvements based on what I learn. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  09:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

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


 * This is difficult without a specific situation as I believe each situation like this would have to be handled differently. That said, I believe that there are ways to present a potentially unpopular decision in ways which lessen its impact but still present it in a clear and unambiguous way. Sometimes unpopular decisions have to be made and presented, and the best way, in my opinion, to present them is to make sure they are presented in a very clear manner in order to avoid any confusion, and to generally avoid sugar-coating them.


 * When something is sugar coated, it may go down easy at first, but it generally leaves a very bad aftertaste. I believe that if you are upfront and honest with people, it helps maintain a level of respect by showing them that you respect them enough to not beat around the bush when it comes to presenting something. As always, I would work with other members of ArbCom to come up with a way of presenting the decision while keeping the above in mind. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk  to Nihonjo e  09:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

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


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


 * For a bit of explanation: In order to protect the project, I believe it's important to make sure we are not violating any copyright. All articles must be verifiable using reliable sources, and the subject of the article must be notable enough to warrant an article, so those come next in my list. Maintaining a neutral POV is important once all the items above that have been satisfied, especially when it comes to biographies of living people. If all of these are taken care of, you generally don't have to worry about original research and what Wikipedia isn't so those are at the bottom of the list. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  09:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Ragesoss
In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?
 * NPOV should present all known points of view in order to create a balanced article which presents the facts as well as any established and sourced opinions on the matter. SPOV, which I hadn't heard of until now (probably because I haven't done much work on any natural science articles) appears to lean toward reporting the general "consensus of the scientific community". This can violate NPOV, however, in that it may ( if adhered to strictly) leave out one or more POVs that disagree with that consensus. I think creating an NPOV article is acceptable and should always take precedence over SPOV, especially since SPOV isn't even a guideline. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk  to Nihonjo e  01:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from maclean
Do you have dispute resolution experience in any of the following areas: Mediation Committee, Mediation Cabal, Third opinion, Requests for comment, or Association of Members' Advocates? If not successful with the Arbitration Committee, will you seek a position with the Mediation Committee?
 * While not directly involved in any of those groups, I've participated in a few discussions guided by them. If I am not successful here, I will certainly consider working with the Mediation Committee. Not related to these groups, I have worked with several groups of editors to come to resolutions on a few different issues (mostly related to Japan- or Japan-Korea-related disputes over article content and wording). Some of these have ended up at mediation, mostly due to inflexibility on the part of one or more editors one one or more sides of the dispute. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  05:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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 thirteen people have resigned from the committee, and that there is currently one vacancy open in one of the tranches. Having members of the committee resign sometime during their term could create problems somewhere down the road. What do you think are the odds that you yourself might consider resigning during the course of your term, and what if any circumstances can you envision that might cause you to resign? Also, do you think that possibly negative feelings from others arising as a result of a decision you made could ever be likely to be cause for your own resignation?


 * I think the odds, as I see them right now, are pretty low that I would resign any time during my term. The only circumstances I could see that would cause that would be significant life changes which would cause me to not be able to spend the appropriate amount of time here to fulfill the responsibilities of being a member of ArbCom. As for resigning because of negative feelings, I try not to let anyone get under my skin, and I generally don't let my feelings about another person affect me when it comes to a commitment I've made. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  05:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

2. There may well arise cases where a dispute based on the inclusion of information whose accuracy is currently a point of seemingly reasonable controversy, possibly even bitter controversy, in that field of study. Should you encounter a case dealing with such information, and few if any of your colleagues on the committee were knowledgeable enough in the field for them to be people whose judgement in this matter could be completely relied upon, how do you think you would handle it?


 * To give a more specific answer I would have to have more specific circumstances. What you are describing seems to describe a content dispute in an article, and if the disputed point is well verified using reliable sources, then it would be unlikely to even be accepted for arbitration. As long as the article clearly states that the point is disputed, and includes verified sources arguing both sides, there should be no argument. It is not Wikipedia's (and therefore ArbCom's) job to make a conclusion on the matter, but rather to make sure all sides are presented so that the readers of the article can decide for themselves. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  05:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Mets501
It says on your user page that you are "currently busy in real life and may not be able to respond swiftly to queries". A large amount of time is required to be an arbitrator, and sometimes quick responses are crucial. Do you feel that you have the extra time to be an arbitrator? — Mets501 (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I apologize for any confusion. That's there mainly so people don't always expect an immediate response. In truth, I am generally on Wikipedia daily, and I check my Talk page multiple times daily. I have modified the notice to be more clear on that point. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  05:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Newyorkbrad
Welcome to the race. These are standard questions I've been asking all the candidates. Newyorkbrad 02:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) What can be done to reduce delays in the arbitration process?
 * I suspect that depends entirely or mostly on the arbitrators themselves, as well as the involved parties. I will do my best to be as prompt as possible in all cases in which I am involved. I will also look for places where the process may be streamlined without causing necessary processes to be overlooked or gone through too quickly. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  05:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) If elected, do you anticipate participating in writing the actual ArbCom decision in cases? If so, do you have any writing experience that would be relevant to this task?
 * I have experience doing technical writing and editing, which is one reason I enjoy Wikipedia so much: I get to do that most of the time I'm here. I also have some background in law (though IANAL), so I am good at writing in a clear manner things such as decisions. I have worked a lot on clarifying the Manual of Style (Japan-related articles), and had a hand to varying degrees in the discussions and wording on a few other such guidelines. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  05:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Anomo
1. Do you think there should be an age requirement for ArbCom? Anomo 12:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. I do, however, think someone should be able to show through their interactions a level of maturity that I believe is necessary in order to do a good job on ArbCom. I believe a look through their past interactions, in edit summaries and on Talk pages, should easily show whether someone is displaying the proper maturity level for the job. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  18:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

2. I have read on several websites (they even gave links to block logs) of Wikipedia admins who do things like indefinitely blocking accounts who have not edited for months, there was no CheckUser anything, no reports, and the admin didn't give any reason, just put personal attacks as the block reason (e.g. saying "troll"). Basically such cases seem done beyond punative, but just out of bullying. I saw at least ten of these, but so far I can only find one here. I don't feel like digging for hours, as I just want to ask your opinion of whether you support or oppose such admin activity because it's clear most support it. Anomo 12:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Each case is different, so I can't offer an overall opinion. Looking through the contribs for Thodin, it appears that Rhobite was justified in blocking Thodin. This was not Thodin's first block, either, and there appears to be a history of Thodin acting in ways unacceptable on Wikipedia. Generally, I think a longer edit summary should be used, especially in banning blocks, but there's nothing that is hidden here as all of the history is available to be reviewed. Please keep in mind than any actions such as this are subject to review, and some are reviewed. If you have concerns about this particular block, I recommend bringing it up on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and it will be looked at by several admins. If someone is known to be a troll, then I don't have any problem with them being banned. They can always request that it be lifted if they wish to contribute under that username at some point in the future. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  18:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

3. What is your view on the current policy often called "kicking them while they're down" of deleting the user and talk pages of people who are blocked? Anomo 12:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I've seen, that only happens in extreme cases. In most cases, the userpage and talk page are left up as that user can post requests on it. Unless a compelling reason is shown for them to be deleted, I think they should generally be left as is. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  18:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

4. What is your view on the practice on Wikipedia where a person blanks out text on talk pages because the text mentioned something wrong the person did or defeated them in an argument? The text blanked usually has no reason given. When there is a reason given, it's only a fake reason. In rare cases, the text is not blanked, but the entire talk page is archived including discussions hours old, blanking it out. Anomo 12:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If someone wants to do that on their own talk page, I don't generally have a problem with it (though I do think warnings should remain on their page for at least a certain period of time). I have no problem with them archiving their talk pages in any timeframe. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  18:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

5. What is your view on the frequent practice of locking the talk page of someone who is banned to avoid communication with them? Anomo 12:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My answer under #3, above, applies here. This is generally only done in extreme cases where the banned/blocked user is being abusive. I think it's only warranted in these extreme cases. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  18:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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 12:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of this issue being anything other than a perceived issue. Please note that this question is far too non-specific for me to give any kind of valid response to it.


 * Based on your questions, it appears you tend to believe that admins, ArbCom, and perhaps others always side with admins, and that isn't the case. In cases where an admin has been abusive or stepped over the line, I've seen them reprimanded to varying degrees, up to and including having their sysop bit turned off. It's possible that some may have been banned or blocked for a period of time, too, though I am not aware of any off the top of my head. I do not believe anyone is "above the law" and that everyone here needs to abide by the accepted policies. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  18:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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


 * 1) A current Arbcom case, Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy is concerned with the decision of whether or not a proposed policy has consensus or not, and therefore whether or not it should be a policy/guideline. Whether or not the Arbcom has or should have the power of making this decision is  hotly disputed. Does Arbcom have this power? Should it have this power? Why or why not?
 * To quote the scope of ArbCom's authority to hear a particular dispute, "The Arbitrators reserve the right to hear or not hear any dispute, at their discretion." (emphasis added) In those same Scope guidelines, it is indicated that a request must be made (which happened in this case), so yes, ArbCom has the power to make a decision. As these powers were given (or at least approved) by Jimbo and/or the Board, then yes, they should have them. Whether or not they should hear this particular case is somewhat moot now that they have agreed to hear it and opened it. I think it's important for ArbCom to have the authority to hear or not hear any case they choose, especially since if they step way out of line (which I beleive to be unlikely with several people of wildly-differing backgrounds always being on the committee) Jimba and/or the Board can step in an overturn a decision. From what I've seen, this seems to be a rare likelihood. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  07:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Similarly, a recently closed Arbcom case Requests_for_arbitration/Giano barely dodged the possibly similar issue of whether the Arbcom can, or should, determine whether Bureaucrats properly made someone an administrator. (Discussed, for example, here). The current arbcom dodged the question (didn't reach agreement one way or the other, and ended up leaving it alone by omission), but you don't get to. :-) Does the arbcom have this power? Should it?
 * As I indicated above, ArbCom has the authority to hear or not hear any case, as long as they are requested to hear it. This means they can't jump into the middle of a debate and declare they are taking over. Somone has to request their assistance, and then ArbCom has to agree to it. I think ArbCom should have this authority, but should use it only in extreme cases. In general, I think the admins and the bureaucrats can (and do) handle most cases quite well on their own. In general, it's pretty obvious in these cases that some things were handled incorrectly. Again, however, I think only the most extreme cases should be accepted for hearing by ArbCom. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  07:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)  Various arbcom decisions (can't find a link right now - bonus points for finding a link to an arbcom decision saying this!) have taken into account a user's service to the Wikipedia. Several times they have written that an otherwise good user that has a rare instance of misbehaviour can be treated differently than a user whose similar misbehaviour is their main or sole contribution to the Wikipedia. Do you agree or not, and why?
 * I absolutely agree with this. If a user who has contributed to thousands of articles and participated for years (or even just a year) has a rare slip in judgement, owns up to it, and goes back to being an outstanding contributor, they should be given the benefit of the doubt as they have a proven track record. Everyone makes mistakes, and outside of very rare circumstances where the mistake is outstandingly bad, their past history should be taken into account when deciding what punishment is appropriate. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  07:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) If you agree with the above point, which service to the encyclopedia is more valuable - administration, or writing very good articles? For example, what happens when two editors, an administrator and a good article writer, come into conflict and/or commit a similar infraction - how should they be treated? Note that there are relatively the same number of current administrators and featured articles on the Wikipedia - about 1000 - however, while relatively few administrators have been de-adminned, many former featured articles have been de-featured, so there have been noticeably more featured articles written than administrators made. This is a really tough one to answer without offending at least one important group of people, and I will understand if you weasel your way out of answering it, but it was one of the issues brought up in the recent Requests_for_arbitration/Giano, so you can imagine it may come up again.
 * I don't know that either is necessarily more valuable than the other as each provides a good service to the community. In many cases, administrators are running around "mopping up" and cleaning up messes that editors without the extra flipped bit can't do. This work is just as important as the writing of articles, and in fact may many times help those who are writing the articles. If two editors of similar standing (the only difference being that one is an admin and the other isn't) make the same mistake, they should be treated in like manner when it comes to any consequences. In some cases, I think that admins may actually warrant a higher punishment as they should be more aware of any policies, guidelines, etc., that apply, and therefore should be more of an example of adhering to them. If anyone is offended by that, they shouldn't be. Admins are just the same as any other user, but with a couple extra buttons. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  07:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) While some Arbcom decisions pass unanimously, many pass with some disagreement. I don't know of any Arbcom member who hasn't been in the minority on some decisions. Find an Arbcom decision that passed, was actually made that you disagree with. Link to it, then explain why you disagree. (If you don't have time or inclination to do the research to find one - are you sure you will have time or inclination to do the research when elected? If you can't find any passed decisions you disagree with, realize you are leaving yourself open to accusations of running as a rubber stamp candidate, one who doesn't have any opinions that might disagree with anyone.)
 * Anyone who thinks that I'm shy about sharing my opinions on matters hasn't read through my contributions. After looking through about 40 recent cases, I haven't found any that I really disagreed with right off. That said, I will definitely not just rubber-stamp any decisions if I think they are incorrect. I don't think there's anything wrong with not agreeing with the majority if I have a valid reason for doing so. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  07:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) It has been noted that the diligent User:Fred Bauder writes most of the initial Arbcom decisions -- especially principles, and findings of fact, but even a fair number of the remedies. (Then a fair number get opposed, and refined or don't pass, but he does do most of the initial work.) Do you believe this is: right; neither right nor wrong but acceptable; or wrong? When you get elected, what do you plan to do about it?
 * I don't think it's right or wrong. For all I know, the current members of ArbCom discussed it among themselves and decided to go with one person as a "spokesperson" of sorts. As I don't think it's something that necessarily needs fixing, I don't know that I'll necessarily do anything about it. If you have a concern about it, I'm sure you could always ask Fred or post a comment to the the ArbCom. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  07:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) For those who are administrators only - how do you feel about non-administrators on the arbcom? Note that while "sure, let them on if they get elected" is an easy answer, there are issues with not having the ability to view deleted articles, and either not earning the community trust enough to become an admin, or not wanting the commensurate duties. Or do you believe that non-administrators are a group that need representation on the arbcom? -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * First, the easy answer: I don't have any problem with non-admins being on ArbCom. Granted, it will be more difficult for them to do some things, as you indicated. I don't think that non-admins necessarily need specific representation, per se, as I don't think there's a significant difference between admins and non-admins for 99.9% of what goes on on Wikipedia. I always try to treat everyone with respect, regardless of whether they are an admin or not. In fact, I'm often surprised when I find out some editors are or are not admins. So, I'm fine either way, though I think the job would definitely be easier for those with the extra flipped bit. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  07:03, 28 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 23:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll be reliable, hard working, fair, and be here for the full term of my election. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  08:46, 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 agree that conflicts of interest, whether real or not, should be avoided. I do not plan on making any disparaging remarks about any of the other candidates. Since these elections are not secret ballot, I will not be voting in order to preserve good feelings among the candidates regardless of the outcome. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  17:29, 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".


 * Well, I'll continue to do my best to see that ArbCom has as few issues to deal with as possible as I believe they already have plenty to discuss (just look at their current list). I'll do this by helping people to work out issues without it escalating all the way to ArbCom. I will also participate in any in which I think I have something useful and helpful to include. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  19:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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


 * I think there are quite a few great candidates here. I don't want to get any more specific than that as I indicated above I wouldn't include my opinions about specific candidates. I think that whatever the final outcome, the ArbCom will be gaining some excellent additions to their ranks. I haven't really "campaigned" per se, outside of answering questions here on this page. As for campaign banners, I'm still undecided on those. I think they have both good and bad potential. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  19:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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


 * In the not-very recent past, I've made rude comments in edit summaries, and acted in a less than civil manner on a couple occasions. Since then, I believe I have become more reserved in how I act, and I try to always be civil in any interactions. I can be passionate on occasions, but I try to remain respectful of others' opinions and act in a civil way toward other editors. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  19:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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


 * I have apologized on several occasions, and I've admitted I was incorrect and changed my opinion accordingly on more than one occasion as well. As for "who," I apologize to the appropriate person or group. I believe everyone should be "big" enough to admit mistakes, take any necessary corrective action, and then move on. Anyone who can't do that needs to do some serious self-evaluation and learn to do so. Anyone who can't admit they are wrong when that occasion comes up should not be presenting themselves as acceptable to serve on ArbCom. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  19:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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


 * I think it's always good to use "soft power" first, and try to win them over first before trying anything more forceful. It's always more effective if you can get someone to want the same thing you want (or at least agree on the general direction or effect). It causes much less resentment, and people tend to feel more like their opinions matter and are at least being considered on the same merits as ever other person's opinions. This is important in creating a pleasant and cooperative atmosphere here (or anywhere else, for that matter). ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  19:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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


 * I want Wikipedia to become more than a joke (this is happening already), something that is extremely useful and helpful for almost any subject. While there will always be the goof-offs who only want to destroy the hard work of productive editors, the percentage of those is becoming smaller, I believe, and the quality of the site is becoming better as more editors learn the ropes and begin producing and improving better articles. I enjoy working with others to produce useful and quality articles, as well as helping people (including myself) learn to work better together. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  19:53, 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 10:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've actually read that article a few times before (and again just now), and the tone of the article seems to be generally inline with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It uses extensive inline references (109, plus all the external links and books) throughout the article (though it could use a few more in a few spots). The article isn't an editorial (which is an opinion piece rather than reporting of known facts), though, as I indicated above, there are spots that could use more inline references. As with any article here, it can aways be improved. With any controversial article such as this, there will be plenty of people on all sides of the issue that are wanting something of their POV included, and that's fine as long as it meets WP:V is properly sourced with reliable sources, and is presented in a neutral manner. All articles here should be open to the inclusion of any relevant material which meets these requirements. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  17:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank You, You have my support. Lovelight 18:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Question from Zoe
What is your feeling concerning the potential vote to desysop User:MONGO? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Context, please. --GunnarRene 17:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, please. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  18:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Proposed decision and its Talk page. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As I indicated in my answer to another question above, I will not comment positively or negatively on any other candidate for ArbCom. I will be happy to offer an opinion after the voting is closed and the final decision has been made. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  04:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)