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

Question(s) from jd2718

 * How, in practical terms, can the ArbCom support dedicated editors? Can you address the "actively cultivate, nurture, and sustain" remark in a more specific way?
 * Oh these are just a bunch platitudes I thought sounded nice &mdash; just kidding. These sentiments come from the realization that at least some of us need to be more than just "polite, reasonable and constructive", and from the expanding sense of duty to the project, that that realization has engendered in me. Specifics? Nothing more complicated than being caring, considerate and kind. Acting on the obvious fact that although the encyclopedia is paramount, it is people who write it. This can be as simple as pointing out "good" work as well as "bad". These are things we all can do. As far as the ArbCom goes, helping to resolve disputes quickly and fairly can help a lot. Paul August &#9742; 21:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Are you talking about modifying, in some way, how the ArbCom does business? Would you want to take cases differently from how they are taken now, or perhaps reach decisions that look different? (maybe just a matter of emphasis?). The question is general, but a specific example or two might help.
 * Of the cases I've followed, I've mostly agreed with the decisions of the ArbCom. I do think the ArbCom could do a better job of communicating with the community. And while I doubt that this has had a substantial effect, as a matter of principle, I think that only the ArbCom should have access to the ArbCom mailing list. I don't use IRC, and I don't think the ArbCom should use it in any official way. Paul August &#9742; 21:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) You've 'doubled' out two other candidates who you believe would make good arbitrators. I am assuming that the three of you share some common experience, and behave in somewhat similar ways. Is there a reason to take all three of you, would two be enough, or should the committee perhaps represent a broader range of experience? Or have I framed the question completely wrong?
 * I chose to mention these two candidates because of the respect and esteem I have for them, and because they are long time well established editors, whom I believe would probably be better ArbCom members than me. I've known Geogre for some time, and am pleased to consider him a friend. He is one of our very best writers with many FA's. He is one of the clearest thinking Wikipedians I know. UninvitedCompany I only know from afar, but I know enough to know that he would be a fine arbiter (I like the sound of this word better than the technically correct arbitrator). Take all of us, any of us, or none of us, but take them before me. Paul August &#9742; 21:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) What would the ArbCom lose by not having you as a member? Jd2718 17:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A "reasonably mature", dedicated, conscientious, hardworking, somewhat of a perfectionist, idealist, drone. Paul August &#9742; 21:14, 15 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.


 * The ArbCom makes president setting decisions, the effects of which can be very far reaching. The ArbCom routinely decides about editorial conduct, what is proper behavior, what is not, who is banned from the site, and under what conditions. These decisions greatly effect the editorial lives of the people involved, as well as the environment in which we all work. Occasionally ArbCom has to deal with a case of particular importance (for example the recent Giano case). How it handles such cases can have significant ramifications. Paul August &#9742; 22:08, 15 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?


 * Well since it is not ArbCom's place to write policy, I don't think my views on policy are particularly relevant ;-) In any case, while I agree with WP:IAR in priciple, in practice I have often seen it used &mdash; incorrectly &mdash; to justify all manner of doing whatever you want. Paul August &#9742; 22:08, 15 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?


 * I've read them, and I think I understand them. I would probably restrict my use of these to official ArbCom business. Paul August &#9742; 22:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

4. What is integrity, accountability and transparency to you on the ArbCom?


 * These are important principles that should govern the actions of ArbCom and its members.
 * Integrity means being honest, holding true to one's ideals, recognizing inconvenient truths, having the courage to do the unpopular right thing, admitting when you or your supporters are wrong, supporting your opponents when they are right, and putting the interests of Wikipedia above those of yourself or your friends.
 * Accountability means accepting responsibility for ones actions, being ready to answer questions about the discharge of ones duties, able to give an account of, and account for, ones deeds, willing to admit to, and to be held liable for, ones mistakes.
 * Transparency means making decisions above board and in the light of day, thus helping to foster integrity and allow for accountability. The ArbCom not only needs to be principled, but it needs to be seen to be principled. We need to strive for as much transparency as possible. There are only a very few instances where certain specific pieces of information needs to be kept private. The most transparent medium, is on-Wiki communication. I do not use IRC, and I would like to see its use for anything like official business deprecated. Private emails have there place, but should be used sparingly. I also do not participate in the general mailing lists, because I prefer on-wiki discussions. And while the ArbCom mailing list is probably a necessary evil, I think only ArbCom members should have access to it.
 * Paul August &#9742; 22:08, 15 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?


 * Must go? Gee I hope not. Humor provides a needed release for what otherwise can be stressful work. Of course bad judgment is just that. As David St. Hubbins, lead singer for "One of England's Loudest Bands" said: "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever." Paul August &#9742; 22:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Ragesoss
In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?
 * I don't know what you mean by "scientific point of view", so I don't know if I can answer your question. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding concerning the term "NPOV". NPOV, which stands for Wikipedia's policy of writing from a neutral point of view, is something of a misnomer, in that it does not mean presenting a single specific point of view (namely the "neutral" one), rather it is the policy of presenting multiple POVs in a neutral manner. So whatever is meant by the "scientific point of view" as long as it is meant to refer to a particular point of view, it is not the same as NPOV. Science, religion, philosophy, art, all might be said to employ different methods for determining what is "true", and as such can represent different points of view. They all are important, but none are "neutral" in the sense meant by NPOV. Paul August &#9742; 20:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Tongue in Cheek Question from Spartaz
Since you infer in your candidate statement that you are very considered and that this might be considered slow, how will you contribute to keeping the wheels of arbcom moving quickly enough? --Spartaz 23:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * By working at a slow rate for a long time. Paul August &#9742; 00:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Spartaz 20:55, 16 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)


 * It seems like I've spent my whole life revising my views to be in better accord with existing data. I used to believe in the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy (I still believe in Santa Clause). In elementary school I called a radio talk show to defend socialism. Before becoming a Vietnam war protester, I wrote an editorial for my high school paper touting the domino theory. I used to be a Catholic. I used to believe there were WMD in Iraq. I used to think the invasion of Iraq, had been necessary.


 * When I first encountered Wikipedia I thought it was a crazy idea that could never work. I now think it is a crazy idea that just might work. I have reversed my opinion on AfDs. I've had my views changed about userboxes. I've moderated my initial strong opposition to biographical infoboxes. I've had to sometimes admit that a certain insufferable "I'm always right" editor was actually right.


 * So yes I think of myself as having an open mind, being able to be persuaded by new evidence or a good argument, and willing to admit mistakes gracefully.


 * Paul August &#9742; 01:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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


 * 1) A current Arbcom case, Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy is concerned with the decision of whether or not a proposed policy has consensus or not, and therefore whether or not it should be a policy/guideline. Whether or not the Arbcom has or should have the power of making this decision is  hotly disputed. Does Arbcom have this power? Should it have this power? Why or why not?
 * ArbCom's job is conduct dispute resolution. It should play no role in making policy. Paul August &#9742; 18:04, 20 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?
 * ArbCom has the power to determine whether the conduct of any editor, including a bureaucrat, is appropriate. Bureaucrats have the power to use discretion to determine whether a consensus at RfA has been achieved. They do not have the power to substitute their own opinion for the opinion of the community. Paul August &#9742; 18:10, 20 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?
 * The principle of "equality before the law", means that laws should apply equally to all, there are no special rules for special people, and that guilt or innocence is determined only by what people do, not who they are. However, what we decide to do with the "guilty", is where the "quality of mercy is not strained", and here it does matters who people are. Of course good editors should be given a second chance. Ultimately, ArbCom should take into account whatever is best for the encyclopedia. If the net effect of an editor's contributions will be good for the encyclopedia, then they should stay, otherwise they should go. Paul August &#9742; 18:21, 20 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.
 * Both content writing, and administrative tasks are very important. However if had to choose between an encyclopedia with only good content writers, and one with only good administrators, my choice would be easy. Although I have "written" one FA, and several other articles I think are good, writing well is a struggle for me. I do not consider myself a particularly good or productive content writer. I find the many administrative tasks I perform much easier, I suspect this is true for most of us. Those rare folks who do posses the abundance of knowledge, depth of understanding, and brilliance of prose, to write FA after FA &mdash; these are the folks I most admire. They are our crown jewels, and need to be treasured. I don't think anyone ought to feel offended by that. Paul August &#9742; 18:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) While some Arbcom decisions pass unanimously, many pass with some disagreement. I don't know of any Arbcom member who hasn't been in the minority on some decisions. Find an Arbcom decision that passed, was actually made that you disagree with. Link to it, then explain why you disagree. (If you don't have time or inclination to do the research to find one - are you sure you will have time or inclination to do the research when elected? If you can't find any passed decisions you disagree with, realize you are leaving yourself open to accusations of running as a rubber stamp candidate, one who doesn't have any opinions that might disagree with anyone.)
 * I have great respect for ArbCom and its members, they are volunteers doing a difficult and important job, subject to lots of abuse, with little or no thanks. My appreciation far outweighs any criticisms I may have. Nevertheless, there have been several ArbCom cases that I think could have been handled better, in some cases not so much the decisions, but how those decisions have been presented. To pick just one, Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor. This was a high profile case involving a long time established editor, administrator and bureaucrat, who had many prominent friends, including most of the ArbCom. It was precipitated by Ed's deletion of the AfD page (then called VfD), the ensuing RfA, and aftermath (see my chronology of events). I would have probably favored de-sysopping. However, in any case, I think it would have been helpful if ArbCom had given a clear statement of the inappropriateness of Ed's actions, instead it chose to quickly close the case, with no comment, after Ed agreed to resign as bureaucrat. Paul August &#9742; 19:00, 20 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?
 * Fred has some skill in this area, and is more hardworking than many. Consequently he does tend to set the terms of debate. This is probably not always ideal. The solution is, of course, not for Fred to be any less diligent, but for the rest to be more. Paul August &#9742; 19:04, 20 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?
 * I see no good reason for making adminship a requirement for being on ArbCom. Paul August &#9742; 19:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * These next two are just for you; in a way they're a two part elaboration of the question jd2718 asks above. You've endorsed both Geogre and Uninvited Company, in fact you've asked that they be elected before you. That's very interesting in several ways.


 * 1) Part one: the basic candidate platforms of each (linked above) seem to be somewhat opposed. Geogre writes "One of the reasons that I'm running this time is that I have seen the decisions of ArbCom inflame passions or appear mysterious. I hope that I am articulate enough to be able to explain to people objectively (or at least disinterestedly) what is going on...", while UC writes "Transparency for arbcom decisionmaking is a tough call.", "To some extent the need for transparency and public input is at odds with a fast process...", and of support for "summary judgements". How do you support both?
 * I think I disagree with the assumptions of the question. I do not think that Geogre and UC's candidate statements are in any fundamental way "opposed". Nor do I feel I have to agree with everything each says to support both. Paul August &#9742; 19:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. That response, however, leads to the natural follow-up question - so which parts of what each one says do you most agree with and which parts do you most disagree with? AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't think of anything I disagree with in Geogre's statement. "Flat hierarchy", "we are all equals", arbs are "judges of policy infractions rather than legislators", "transparency, respect, and subordinating all other concerns to the maintenance of a sound editing atmosphere for our volunteers" With all of this I completely agree. Nor do I find anything to disagree with in UC's statement. Although since UC is more specific about a "platform" there is more to potentially quibble with. For example my level of agreement with "Any reasonable means of speeding up the process should be adopted", depends on what he considers to be "reasonable", I don't know for a fact that the ArbCom has been generally "too lenient with troublemakers" but that would be my intuition, and I am an agnostic about whether probation and article bans are "overused". If you want me to say how much I agree or disagree with everything they have written, well … However since you specifically raise the issue of transparency above, I will say that it may be that Geogre and I place a higher emphasis on "transparency" than does UC. However I do take UC's point when he writes that "I believe that the magnitude and importance of internal and side conversations (e.g. among just two or three arbs) are less than is generally believed." And I think the three of us are of one mind when UC writes " Perhaps a different organization or writing style on the decisions would help." Other than this I will take no further bites from this potential Apple of Discord and unlike Paris who had no choice, will choose not to choose. Paul August &#9742; 19:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Part two: Note that each of these candidates and candidacies is controversial in several ways, whereas your excellent candidate statement seems to underscore how non-controversial you are. What would you say to someone who wants to support you before one or both of those, especially because of these controversies?
 * I would say thank you ;-) I disagree that either of these candidates can truly be called "controversial". If someone wants to favor my candidacy, over others, because I seem less controversial to them, thats fine with me. Paul August &#9742; 19:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Badbilltucker
Thank you for volunteering to take on this task, and for putting yourself through having to answer these questions. For what it's worth, these particular questions are going to all the candidates.

1. I've noticed that a total of thriteen people have resigned from the committee, and that there is currently one vacancy open in one of the tranches. Having members of the committee resign sometime during their term could create problems somewhere down the road. What do you think are the odds that you yourself might consider resigning during the course of your term, and what if any circumstances can you envision that might cause you to resign? Also, do you think that possibly negative feelings from others arising as a result of a decision you made could ever be likely to be cause for your own resignation?
 * It's very unlikely that I would resign. I would do so only if either I or the community had lost confidence in my ability to make a useful contribution. I don't think "negative feelings", per se, would enter into it. Paul August &#9742; 22:00, 20 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? Badbilltucker 15:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to a content dispute, then this is not something that ArbCom should be involved in. Fortunately, it rarely takes any particular content expertise to resolve a conduct dispute. Paul August &#9742; 22:00, 20 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?
 * If I felt I had made a mistake, I would admit it, apologize, and try to correct things as quickly as possible. See my answers to Mailer Diablo's question 4 and JzG's question above. Paul August &#9742; 15:24, 21 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?
 * The more controversial a decision is, the more need there is to provide a full explanation of why and how the decision was made, to be very responsive to all questions, to acknowledge that there are opposing views and that those views matter, to keep in mind that you may be wrong, to not react defensively to criticism, and to strive especially hard to keep an open mind. Paul August &#9742; 15:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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


 * They are all important and related, and while some may be more important than others, it doesn't really make much sense try to rank order them. V (verifiability) NPOV (neutral point of view), and NOR (no original research) probably represent the three most important (although one might reasonably argue that NOR follows directly from V). C (copyrights) might come next in importance since it establishes the fundamental principle that our encyclopedia is "free", and strongly asserts that copyright violations are not allowed. NOT (what Wikipedia is not) is important for establishing the kind of articles we allow. RS (reliable sources) enhances V, and N enhances NOT. BLP (biographies of living persons) emphasizes the special care needed in regard to biographies. Paul August &#9742; 17:06, 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.
 * Admins represent our encyclopedia and need to be held to high standards. Any abuse of admin powers is unacceptable and should be dealt with firmly. Paul August &#9742; 14:03, 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?
 * I have not participated in any of the areas you mention except Requests for comment. I do have some interest in the other areas and might participate in the future. Paul August &#9742; 03:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

2. In your candidate statement you endorse two other candidates and name-drop a sitting arbitrator. How would you address concerns that a voting block on the Committee might form?
 * It won't happen. My votes would in no way depend on any others. Paul August &#9742; 03:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Questions from Anomo
1. Do you think there should be an age requirement for ArbCom? Anomo 12:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, not per se. Obviously a certain maturity of character is a good thing. Paul August &#9742; 21:56, 29 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)


 * Admins should not block users out of spite, or for any personal or punitive motive. And although you say that "most support" such activity, I disagree. I believe there is a strong consensus that blocks are only appropriate to prevent damage to, or disruption of, the encyclopedia. A concerted campaign of personal attacks might rise to the level of disruption, a single personal attack, while boorish and unhelpful, does not. Paul August &#9742; 21:56, 29 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)


 * Pages should be deleted only if they do more harm to the encyclopedia than good. Paul August &#9742; 21:56, 29 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)


 * Except for obvious vandalism, and routine archiving, I see little reason to ever delete anything from a talk page. Any attempt to suppress civil debate or a particular point of view is wholly antithetical to the principles of Wikipedia. In the case of uncivil debate, some editors feel that it is a good practice to delete what they consider to be personal attacks, generally I see little advantage to this practice. Paul August &#9742; 21:56, 29 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)
 * Generally not a good idea. Paul August &#9742; 21:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

6. Why is it that in the past when in a conflict in ArbCom between non-admins and administrators that ArbCom has usually sided with the admins? Anomo 17:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know that it is correct that "ArbCom has usually sided with admins". If, by your question, you mean to assert that the ArbCom is biased toward admins, I admit this is possible and perhaps even likely given human nature. Of course any bias is wrong. However I think the ArbCom generally does a good job of being objective and fair-minded. Moreover, that the ArbCom's decisions might have upheld the admin's position more often than not, is not necessarily, wrong or surprising or evidence of bias. Rather it could be that most of the time the admins were right. Paul August &#9742; 21:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Sebastian
How would you define the term "overreaction"; where would you draw the borderline; and can this term be useful in an arbitration? * &mdash; Sebastian (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

* (Background: Paul cautiously used this term once in a private conversation, in which he gave good advice in an arbitration-like situation. I'm just not that familiar with the term and would like to understand how it can be a useful concept. I thought of asking this of all applicants to be fair, but when I read we have over 1000 questions already, I decided against it, because I don't think it's of such general interest. There is a tiny off chance that I change my mind depending on this discussion.)


 * A reaction is a response to some action or event, like swerving to avoid a pothole. An overreaction is a reaction that is excessive, that goes beyond what is ideal, like swerving so hard you loose control of the car and drive over a cliff. The idea of overreaction is conveyed in common expressions like "making a mountain out of a mole hill" and "blowing things out of proportion". There is no line separating an appropriate response from an excessive or inadequate one. Aristotle would say the appropriate response is the golden mean between "underreaction" and overreaction, the farther you move from this ideal, the more you are under or over reacting. As for how this might relate to ArbCom, I would say that most disputes that arrive there involve overreactions by most of the parties. Paul August &#9742; 22:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. This is a very helpful view! I brought it up in Talk:Reaction. &mdash; Sebastian (talk) 23:13, 1 December 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)
 * Dedication, honesty, integrity, clarity, maturity, objectivity, temperateness, consideration, responsibility and an abiding concern for our encyclopedia. Paul August &#9742; 04:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Cyde Weys
1. 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 20:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid it's too late for me not to vote or comment on other candidates, since I have already commented on two other candidates in my candidate statement, and I've also voted "support" for both.


 * I appreciate the concern for generating friction. However I don't see that a vote or a comment need do so. I would hope that my comments and votes so far have not done so. In fact I can't imagine how they could have. But I might be wrong, so if anyone feels that they have, I would appreciate if they would explain to me how.


 * I would assume that the chief concern is for voting "oppose" or making negative comments about another candidate. I have yet to vote "oppose", and as for comments, the only one I believe which might reasonably be construed as negative was as the result of being drawn into some mild criticism of UnivitedCompany's platform in AnonEMouse questions above.


 * As for whether such things should be proscribed, I think there may well be good reasons for one candidate to vote "oppose" for another, or to give some criticism. For instance, I support keeping ArbCom's scope restricted to conduct disputes, while I believe there are some candidates who are in favor of expanding ArbCom's scope. I could imagine my criticizing their positions or voting "oppose" for such a candidate. It is important to distinquish between disagreement and disparagement. I do not think such a vote or criticism should be the cause of any ill will, nor make it so that we could not work effectively together. Certainly that might be difficult for "two people who vehemently publicly attacked and opposed each other", but the solution is simple &mdash; don't do that.


 * I wholeheartedly agree that it is wise to keep statements about another candidate to a minimum. I give my public assurance to try to do that.


 * By the way, if such a prohibition were to be adopted, it should apply to sitting ArbCom members as well.


 * Paul August &#9742; 19:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

2. You mention in your candidate statement that you endorse Geogre for ArbCom above yourself. Since then he has made some rather vicious statements about another candidate running in this election. Do you still endorse him? Also, can you look at the history of this questions page and give your opinion on whether you think it is even right for this question to stand, and if it isn't, who should be in charge of removing it? -- Cyde Weys 14:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Geogre is not perfect. None of us are. Do I think he has handled everything as well as he could have? No. Do I still think he would make an excellent arbiter? Yes. Other than that, I think I will take the advice given above and refrain from commenting further here about a fellow candidate.


 * As for whether it is right for this question to stand. I don't know. I think the characterization of "vicious" is probably not helpful. If the question is motivated by a desire to attack candidates then it is probably not helpful. Also it does seem to be a bit of a Catch 22, to ask a candidate to not comment about other candidates (in the question above), and then ask for a comment on another candidate, in this question. And as for who should be responsible for removing it, I would say that would be the person who wrote it.


 * Paul August &#9742; 20:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions from NinaEliza
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 have no interest in power per se. And you are certainly correct that with power comes responsibility, which isn't much fun. You are also correct in pointing out that any editor can contribute to the ArbCom process. If I'm not appointed to the ArbCom, I might consider becoming more involved in ArbCom cases, I might consider clerking as well. Paul August &#9742; 23:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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


 * From what I've seen &mdash; this is my first day on Wikipedia since the "election" started &mdash; it seems to be working relatively well. Although, there has been some acrimony being generated in various quarters (e.g. see the history of this page), and I've heard rumors of campainging going on on IRC, which might be an issue. I think the group of candidates is reasonably strong. And although I wouldn't encourage their use, the campaign banners that I've seen have seemed innocuous enough. As far as I know my own "campaign" has consisted of an announcement on my talk page, my candidate statement and these answers. Paul August &#9742; 23:16, 8 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.


 * Being human I've made plenty of mistakes. I frankly can't think of any very serious mistakes I've made on Wikipedia. I've had a few "disputes" that I suppose I could have handled better. It might be instructive to search for the word "sorry" in User talk:Paul August/Archive Index. See also my answer to similar questions above. Paul August &#9742; 23:38, 8 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.


 * Sure I apologize for my mistakes. For examples, as above, search for the word "sorry" in User talk:Paul August/Archive Index. Paul August &#9742; 23:44, 8 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'd do what ever seemed appropriate. I'd prefer to stay within existing policies and practices, but if it were truly a matter of life or death, radical changes in these could be implemented, fairly quickly. I'd really need more details to know how to answer this. Paul August &#9742; 23:48, 8 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 to help create the best source of encyclopedic information on the planet, free to all. That's why I came, that's why I stay. I derive enjoyment from reading, learning, studying, synthesizing, summarizing, writing, teaching and empowering. I also enjoy interacting with the many smart and interesting people to be found here. The sense of doing something worthwhile is what makes me happy here. Paul August &#9742; 23:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

NinaEliza 18:44, 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)


 * This is a subject well outside my area of expertise, I know no more about this than the average person, so I can only say that this article seems to be in accord with what I've seen from other sources, and to be reasonably neutral. This is an article, about a relatively recent, and in some ways still unfolding, event. It involves issues which are deeply emotional and inflammatory and have been highly politicized. All of which make this a problematic topic, particularly so for an encyclopedia, as opinion has yet to settle. Taking all that into account, I am reasonably satisfied with the article.


 * It is important to keep in mind that it is not our job to determine the truth, but rather to report, in as neutral a way as possible, what others say the truth is.


 * On a personal note, I found out about the attack only a few minutes after the first plane hit. I saw the second plane hit. Saw the first tower collapse. And then the second. Worried about loved ones &mdash; and strangers. Hardly sleeping, I sat frozen in front of my TV for days.


 * Paul August &#9742; 22:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Truth? As truth will set you free..? With regards to the asked questions why would you remind of, and how should one interpret such well placed guideline? Wouldn’t you agree that we are here to deal with the facts, not their interpretation by particular interest group and/or perspective? If small group of structural engineers tends to think how Earth travels through space on the backs of four elephants that stand on the back of a giant turtle or that Sun revolves around such oddity in seven seconds I'd certainly be very careful about "reporting" what they say as truth;)…


 * On a personal note, I found out about the attacks only a few minutes after the first plane hit. I saw the second plane hit. Saw the first tower collapse. And then the second. And then the third. Worried about loved ones — and strangers. Worried about the World. Hardly sleeping, I sat frozen in front of my TV for days. Honestly. Well, thanks for your time, you have my support, but truth has nothing to do with it;)… Lovelight 15:35, 11 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)