Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)

"But enough talk about me, let's talk about YOU...what do you think of ME?"--Groucho Marx

Remember, though, as they say in The Village, Questions are a burden to others; answers a prison for oneself.

R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Three questions from Carcharoth
Thanks for running in the election. Hope these questions are an easy way to start.

These are copies of questions initially asked by John Reid.

1. Who are you?


 * I ask myself that everyday...and so should everyone. The unexamined life is not for me.

2. Are you 13? Are you 18?


 * Neither...in fact I'm 13+18+10. Which places me in the same age cohort as John Reid and George.

3. Should ArbCom arbitrate policy disputes or any other matter outside user conduct issues? Why or why not?


 * Whether or not it should, the fact is it does. Like it or no, Arbcomm has become the Wiki-Court of last resort. This is not surprising, really, given that certain conduct issues, especially those involving Admins and B'Crats, raise policy issues as well. Now do I think Arbcomm should also make policy instead of review and apply it? That, my friend, is another question;) The short answer is NO. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 00:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Giano
1: What do you feel has been your principal contribution to the writing of the encyclopedia, or have you in the past been more concerned with administration and policy?


 * As a writer, most certainly. I believe strongly that everyone here should be a writer first and all else is secondary. Unfortunately, in recent months, I've found myself increasingly dragged into matters of administration and policy. I'm sure you know where I'm coming from here;). I'd MUCH rather be writing, but since circumstances have determined otherwise, I will do what I can to help and encourage other writers by improving the work environment for them and bringing their concerns to the forefront.

2: Many editors like to discuss their action and work frequently on IRC, if elected would you consult on IRC. Do you feel your arbcom work would be hindered by your not having access to the IRC's admin channel? Giano 07:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no intention of ever going on IRC for any reason or in any incarnation. If anyone wishes to consult with me, there are plenty of ways for them to do so here...I will graciously indulge them:) Though I won't go so far as to say IRC=Evil, it has created many problems, especially regarding openness and transparency. IRC is mainly a social gathering place, not a formal, governing mechanism of the project and community. As such it should carry no more weight than the Wikipedians' Community on Live Journal, or the many other such channels. Should a matter arise which requires private consultaion and/or deliberation, there's always e-mail. But under the normal course of operations, 90%+ of the time, elected judges on a community court should have no secrets to hide.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

1. A current Arbcom case, Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy is concerned with the decision of whether or not a proposed policy has consensus or not, and therefore whether or not it should be a policy/guideline. Whether or not the Arbcom has or should have the power of making this decision is hotly disputed. Does Arbcom have this power? Should it have this power? Why or why not?


 * No and No. Clearly this is a Foundation level issue, thus the ArbComm should have refused to hear it and passed the matter along to the board or the office or Jimbo depending on whomever feels brave enough or wise enough to handle this hot potato. I heartily concur with John Reid's statements urging ArbComm to reject this case . This is a fine example of where the ArbComm overstepped its bounds and has trespassed into the realm of policy-making rather than its righful place as the judiciary; interpreting, reviewing and applying policies.

2. Similarly, a recently closed Arbcom case Requests_for_arbitration/Giano barely dodged the possibly similar issue of whether the Arbcom can, or should, determine whether Bureaucrats properly made someone an administrator. (Discussed, for example, here). The current arbcom dodged the question (didn't reach agreement one way or the other, and ended up leaving it alone by omission), but you don't get to. :-) Does the arbcom have this power? Should it?


 * Sorry, but I must disagree with your assessment here. The two cases are quite different, as the Giano case clearly involved conduct (of users, admins and b-crats alike). There was no way the Arbcomm could have avoided hearing it, especially since it was brought on, in part, by its own actions and prior decisions. What it did dodge was its responsibility to address the underlying issues which led to it, as I stated in the introduction to my proposed findings in the case . As a result, I don't think anyone was really satisfied with the outcome. The only positives were Raul's wise change of heart which prevented the scapegoating of John Reid and relief when it was finally over. Something is fundementally wrong when the best you can say is, well, at least they didn't make matters worse.

3. Various arbcom decisions (can't find a link right now - bonus points for finding a link to an arbcom decision saying this!) have taken into account a user's service to the Wikipedia. Several times they have written that an otherwise good user that has a rare instance of misbehaviour can be treated differently than a user whose similar misbehaviour is their main or sole contribution to the Wikipedia. Do you agree or not, and why?


 * Of course past contributions should be given due consideration. They constitute Mitigating circumstances. What must be avoided is favoritism, and one need look no further than the Giano case above to find examples of this. For instance, the AC's thanking of Kelly Martin, which I believe is the sort of the example you're looking for....now where are my bonus points!?:).

4. If you agree with the above point, which service to the encyclopedia is more valuable - administration, or writing very good articles? For example, what happens when two editors, an administrator and a good article writer, come into conflict and/or commit a similar infraction - how should they be treated? Note that there are relatively the same number of current administrators and featured articles on the Wikipedia - about 1000 - however, while relatively few administrators have been de-adminned, many former featured articles have been de-featured, so there have been noticeably more featured articles written than administrators made. This is a really tough one to answer without offending at least one important group of people, and I will understand if you weasel your way out of answering it, but it was one of the issues brought up in the recent Requests_for_arbitration/Giano, so you can imagine it may come up again.


 * Over the past year, a gap has opened up between writers and (non-writing) admins. As a result of Wikipedia's growth, many admins were promoted primarily due to their vandal-fighting activities, involvement in Afd, on IRC or just about anything other than their editorial contributions. Also, it is a LOT easier to de-feature an FA (especially given the current fetish which equates quality=verifiability=# of inline citations), than to defrock an admin. The sad truth is, there are a lot of admins out there who don't deserve to be...likewise there are many great writers who do. If the Giano case showed anything it is that Rfa is broken and needs to be replaced and a better way of removing abusive, incompetent or otherwise unworthy admins must be found. As it stands, too many see adminship as a reward and a privillge rather than a duty and responsibility. Adminship should be difficult to gain and easy to lose, instead of the other way round. Admins must be held to higher standards of conduct than users. Those placed in positions of trust by the community must be held accountable when they violate that trust. Therefore, depending on the specifics of the case(s), the Ghost judge would tend to look more kindly upon the writer. Good writers, after all, are a lot harder to find and easier to lose than admins. Apologies if this sounds harsh (Hey, some of my best friends are admins:), remember that admins are servants of the community not its masters...it is for good reason their badge of office is a mop. The project needs quality content contributors now more than janitors. If you still think we need a vandal fighting army, then give the roll-back button and semi-protection privs to all Wikipedians in good standing (defined here as having 500 mainspace edits). If you want a candidate who will cowtow to the admin cabal, then I'm not your Ghost.

5. While some Arbcom decisions pass unanimously, many pass with some disagreement. I don't know of any Arbcom member who hasn't been in the minority on some decisions. Find an Arbcom decision that passed, was actually made that you disagree with. Link to it, then explain why you disagree. (If you don't have time or inclination to do the research to find one - are you sure you will have time or inclination to do the research when elected? If you can't find any passed decisions you disagree with, realize you are leaving yourself open to accusations of running as a rubber stamp candidate, one who doesn't have any opinions that might disagree with anyone.)


 * Requests_for_arbitration/Giano (Get in the barrel lil fishies:) for all the reasons discussed above. This Ghost will be a rubber stamp (or rubber soul) for no one!

6. It has been noted that the diligent User:Fred Bauder writes most of the initial Arbcom decisions -- especially principles, and findings of fact, but even a fair number of the remedies. (Then a fair number get opposed, and refined or don't pass, but he does do most of the initial work.) Do you believe this is: right; neither right nor wrong but acceptable; or wrong? When you get elected, what do you plan to do about it?


 * All due respect to the diligent Mr. Bauder, but I don't think it is fair or just for any one member to have the burden of writing most of the decisions. Even when they are willing and able to carry such a burden, it is placing far too much responsibility in a single member's hands. Such a duty, as with all things Wiki, should be a shared and collaborative effort. IF elected, I will do my part in helping to craft and articulate decisions (I'm a writer, you know:). Perhaps some sort of arrangements can be made where certain cases would have a Presiding Arbitrator who would be charged with overseeing the proceedings including writing the decision. The PA could also refer certain matters to the sub-committees, which would help divide and facilitate the work.

7. For those who are administrators only - how do you feel about non-administrators on the arbcom? Note that while "sure, let them on if they get elected" is an easy answer, there are issues with not having the ability to view deleted articles, and either not earning the community trust enough to become an admin, or not wanting the commensurate duties. Or do you believe that non-administrators are a group that need representation on the arbcom? AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As stated above, admins are servants of the community, not its masters. Restricting Arbcomm membership to them would imply otherwise. Sorry, but I felt the need to answer that, seeing as ArbComm is about the only place where administrators can be held accoutable for their actions. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 03:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Probably the same difference as between Creationism and Intelligent design. Sorry, but I'm not sure what sort of response you are looking for here, plus I'm tired from answering E-Mouse's questions:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 03:30, 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 23:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Being elected will bring me to the Arbitration Committee...oh wait..you want to know what I will bring? Ok then- I will bring new ideas and perspectives, justice and compassion, wit and wisdom, humor and humility...and my SpiderMan(tm) pajamas.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 03:15, 2 December 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?


 * The future's not ours to see, que sera sera as my Mother used to sing to me:). I'm not Spock nor Data nor a bookie...I can't give you the odds. But barring any sort of Imponderabilia, I can foresee two scenarios in which I would resign: 1)Personal issues, probably pertaining to job, family etc. which would force me to spend less time online in general...better to move on and give someone else a chance than have an empty, wasted seat. 2)Should my judgement, integrity or character be seriously brought into question. This is not to say I will resign over the slighest little mistake...I will make errors. Those who claim they won't are either perfect or lying. But if I should make a serious mistake, or am repeatedly shown to be unworthy of the duties of my post, I shall resign. I have no illusions that this will be anything but a difficult and time-consuming job. Toes will be stepped on, feelings hurt ("Spears shall be shaken, shields splintered!":). But fear of hurt feelings must never prevent us from having the courage to make tough decisions. Arbs are in the dispute resolution business...the distribution of justice, not warm fuzzys.

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


 * I believe stongly the ArbComm should stay out of content disputes insofar as possible. We must be concerned primarily with the conduct of those involved in such disputes and refrain from making editorial decisions. There are other groups and individuals far better qualified than us to make those decisions. Therefore, unless one of the parties' behavior is a clear and extreame violation of policies or principles, I would toss the matter to the Mediation Committee, and in the meantime ask an admin to protect said article(s) until the controversy is resolved. Let me repeat-We are concerned primarily with conduct not content.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:40, 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. -- Cyde Weys 20:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Cyde! I will most certainly promise to say only nice things about my fellow candidates. This should be an easy promise to keep, considering what a distinguished field we have this year. I have nothing but respect, and in some cases deep admiration, for them. So you have my assurance I will not to be one of these nor one of those. I will, however, exercise my right to endorse and vote for candidates I support, and politely oppose those whom I do not.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 20:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I'd say that you ultimately reserve the right to excercise your vote. It should be already understood by all respected and high-esteemed candidates that at the end of this elections, there should no hard feelings regardless of supports or opposes. As from my observation at the January elections, hard feelings usually come not from the votes, but from the comments that are associated with the votes. Henceforth, I think restaining to comment in your vote is the best way to go. - Good luck and best regards, Mailer Diablo 21:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As I stated, I will refrain from negative campaigning...if I don't have anything good to say I won't say anything:). But if I feel the need to oppose one of my fellow candidates I will do so respectfully and with due decorum.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your statement. :) - Mailer Diablo 22:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Anytime my friend:) Do you have any questions for the Ghost candidate?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * & Not at the moment. :) - Mailer Diablo 05:57, 3 December 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 been involved in several Rfc's as a witness and commentator. I've observed the Mediation Committee and Cabal and found the former to be moribund and the latter almost comatose, which precluded my taking a more active role in either of them. The Association of Members' Advocates is a good idea which, sadly, never took off. These are examples of what I mean above by the means for dispute resolution, mediation and participation breaking down. Too many cases are going directly to ArbComm (without passing GO or collecting $200) and this is one reason why it is becoming overloaded and starting to crack also. The high attrition rate amongst Arbs, which Badbilltucker notes above, is one result. ArbComm needs to strengthen these other means of dispute resolution...for its own sake if for no other reason. It needs to refer more users to them as a form of "court-ordered counseling" if you will.

2. In a question above you said you value openness and transparency on Arbcomm. Should arbitrators discuss cases or voting privately amongst themselves or approach all cases independently of one another?


 * Discussion and voting should be public. Arbitrators should judge each case based on the evidence and arguements along with mitigating and aggrieving circumstances. In addition to openness and transparency, I also strongly believe, independent thinking is crucial for ArbComm to perform fairly and avoid the perils of groupthink.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Ral315
What could possibly make you think that casting a proxy vote on behalf of a banned user is an action worth taking? Ral315 (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no policy, rule nor guideline which expressly forbids proxy voting. If there were I would have refrained. Maybe I should have posted it in the comments section instead. The b-crats, who were so bold in closing that infamous Rfa early and promote without consensus were within their rights to move it to that section or even strike it from the record if they had wished. They chose instead using it as part of a justification for their usurpation of policy and established practice. Many of the very same people who condemn Karmafist at every opportunity, turn around and speak of forgiveness, healing and second chances with regards to Carnildo. They think poor Carnildo was wronged...fine, I believe Karmafist was wronged and I have just as much right to say so, including serving as his voice when he has none. This is exactly the sort of favoritism and scapegoating I will fight as long as I'm here...whether I'm elected to ArbComm or not! So in retrospect, it was really more of a protest vote. If I had known that it would be used as a sort of Reichstag Campfire, I would have acted differently. Incidently, I find your coverage of the matter on the signpost to be highly slanted and biased. Nearly the entire thing is devoted to presenting the pro-Carnildo side of the story. If it had been an article in mainspace, someone would have slapped a POV tag on it faster than a starving dingo in a maternity ward.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A banned user has no voice. That's the point of a ban, not a block.  A blocked user can come back; a banned user is indefinitely forbidden from editing Wikipedia, through their own accounts and others'.  Incidentally, I would be curious to see how you think the Signpost coverage was biased.  Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 01:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've already stated what I found wrong with the Signpost's story on the Carnildo affair. But since you're curious let's examine it again, shall we?
 * It starts off with basic background...no problems so far. Then it presents the entire official statement by Taxman et al., going directly into Rdsmith4's (Who later admited their action was wrong) spin, on votes of questionable legitimacy. Then the Arbcomm clerk, whose function, in theory, is hardly more than an autonomaton, comes out and specifically points to my proxy vote...which I clearly marked as such. The unsubstantiated accusations of sockpuppetry are only glanced over... mentioned in vague, quasi-official statements as fact. And only as they apply to anti-Carnildo votes...the very real possibility of pro Carn Sock votes is ignored. There follows brief statements from Ligulem and Chacor, who were only marginally involved in the matter, as token, tiny voices of dissent so the piece won't look too slanted. Which is quickly countered by an arguement that the 75% guideline was only a guideline, which B-crats are free to ignore today because they did in the past before the guideline existed. This is tantamount to saying, it's ok to ignore the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, because US Senators were once chosen by state legislatures rather than directly by the people. It concludes by noting  that Carnildo's sysop status will be reviewed in two months by the ArbComm where a final decision will be made. Well it's over 2 months now and there has been ZERO follow up on this. What has happened? And why hasn't it been reported in the Signpost? I've seen High School newspapers with more balanced coverage and in-depth analysis than this.


 * I can only assume that they, and therefore you as the establishment's mouthpiece, went after my ill-placed "protest vote" (Which could have easily been struck or moved, so why wasnt it?) as a justification, because their alligations of sock-voting or votes cast by the Ill-informed masses, can't be substantiated and apply just as well to both camps. For instance, what about this !?
 * Danny's hamfisted deletion of it is brushed off as a "mistake", even assuming it was Nae'blis makes a very valid, important point and one which your "paper" completely ignored. So now I'm curious, if you can point me to a single story in any edition of the Signpost which you believe is truly critical of the Wikimedia establishment?


 * While you are considering this challenge, I will address the matter of Karmafist. Yes, he is banned. I'll give you that. I believe he was banned unjustly and deserves another chance. But let's forget that...let's also forget, as his persecutors have, that Jimbo forgave him . I admit I was wrong to ask him to cast a proxy vote on his behalf, I was wrong for casting it and I apologize for its role in making this sad matter worse. Had I not done it, it could not have been blown out of proportion and used as an iceberg to sink my candidacy. So yes the fault, my dear Ral, is not with your Signpost, but with me. Putting aside our political differences, I hope we can all agree that this entire affair is a dark chapter in Wikipedia history and none of us invloved with it have come out smelling of roses. The question of who stinketh most? is moot. We can do better...we MUST do better.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 16:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions from R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)
Hi Ghost, since some think it bad form for candidates to ask each other questions, at the risk of this do you mind if I asked a few of you?


 * Not at all, please proceed.

1. Thanks. You admit you are dissatisfied, dare I say disgruntled, with the direction things are headed. You seem to see dysfunction everywhere. Why, then, are you bothering to run?


 * Because I also see all the things which DO work, such as the WikiProject Military history, and all the hard work by so many talented, thoughful, dedicated Wikipedians and realize there is still hope. It CAN be otherwise. We can make this project and community better live up to their promise and potential. But only if we each do what we can to make it thus. If not then all our efforts will be wasted, the project will fail and Wikipedia will turn into the Infobahn's largest truckstop restroom wall. I think at this point, I can best help as an Arbitrator, and even if I fail to win a seat, there's no harm in trying.

Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in that grey twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat.--Theodore Roosevelt

2. Very well then, Teddy, now that you've decided to chaaarge in- What, to your mind, is the difference between blocks and bans? Who do you think should have the authority to impose them?


 * Blocks are preventative in nature, Bans are punitive. Either can be short or long in duration. Bans tend to be longer by definition, but there is a certain 'grey area where long blocks, or serial short ones become, de-facto bans. Many so-called "community bans" are examples of this. Only Jimbo and the ArbComm should have the right to hand out long term bans. Any block of more than a week is long term, and should require the consent of Jimbo or the Arbcomm, unlesss there is clear evidence the user in question poses a grave threat to Wikipedia. Any block of a month or more is long term, and hence Ultra vares (beyond the legal power) of admins or others who claim to be acting in the name of the community. Jimbo is this community's leader, the Arbs are its duly elected judges. Any other individuals or groups who try to usurp these judicicary functions are vigilantes and kangaroo courts and must be brought to heel.

3. Certain of your fellow candidates have declared that if elected they will take a Zero tolerance stance against admininstrator misconduct. From your comments above it sounds like you will too, right?


 * I will be tough with admins, but fair. I do not care for the phrase Zero tolerance at all. It seems to be an anathema for a society and community based on tolerance. Be liberal in what you tolerate, be conservative in what you do, is one of the fundemental, guiding principles of Wikipedia, and part of my personal creed...ZT is clearly runs counter to this. Moreover, it has been my observation and experience that those who invoke Zero tolerance, are either trying to sound tough in order to cover up for some real or perceived weakness, or they have shut down their higher judgement faculties and are reacting based on knee jerk impulses. Yes, I've seen good, contributing users driven away by abusive admins. But I've also seen some good admins lose their mops either temporarily or indefinately for no good reasons. Sure, admins must be held to higher standards of accountability for their conduct, but they are also entitled to the same justice and fair treatment as anyone.

4. Can you tell me more about this sub-committee system you mentioned creating to help speed the AC's work? How would it work? Are Submarines involved?


 * No submarines, yellow or otherwise, would be involved, but I'm glad you asked. Sub-committees, or SubComms, would work in two ways-First, they would screen cases to determine whether they are worth the attention of ArbComm as a whole or better turned over to some other means of dispute resolution, thus helping to reduce the caseload and speed up the initial accept or reject phase. Second, they would help divide up the AC's workload by focusing on specfic types of cases and tasks (for example, there could be a SubComm for User Misconduct and one for Decision Drafting). There would be both standing and ad-hoc SubComms, each consisting of 3 to 6 members. Each SubComm would have a "chair", to preside over its activities and cast tie-breaking votes if needed. The chairs would be chosen by the other members at first, but would afterwards rotate between cases, until every member has had a chance to be chair at least once. SubComms would never make the final decisions, only recommendations and drafts which the Arbcomm as a whole would be free to follow or reject.

5. You seem awfully damned opinionated, dude...what up with that!?


 * Opinionated, yes but open-minded. I like to think I come to my opinions through careful thought and reflection. I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong and change my mind accordingly. I'd much rather change my views to fit the facts than to be slave to a flawed, failed worldview.

6. May I say that you, sir, are a formidable candidate?


 * No sir, you may not...that would constitute bad form:).

--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:42, 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 imagine if I'm not elected I'll be spending a lot more time as an ordinary Wikipeon. Unless, of course, I decide to take an epic Wikibreak (highly likely) or go on the long walk into the sunset.

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]]?


 * a) I think the system for chosing Arbs works a lot better than that for chosing admins. b) Some of my fellow candidates I greatly admire and think will make amazing Arbs, others I think are ok, still others are strangers, a few I really wonder what they are doing here. c) I think personal campaign banners and such are bad form, but they are only a symptom and manifestation of the larger politicization and polarization which plagues our community. They are legal...hey free speech on a free pedia, gotta take the good with the bad, dig? d) I take comfort in the quality of my supporters. If votes were weighted based on user contributions, I'd be running a very close race now:).

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.


 * Please see my discussion with Ral above.

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 once more refer you to my discussion with Ral.

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.


 * This is one of the best questions I've been asked. I believe it is more than hypothetical...it is happening now. The challenges of keeping Wikipedia free and open yet at the same time managing the chaos so it can function as an encyclopedia, are formidable. Which is why ArbComm needs to adapt to these challenges by adopting new practices, such as the sub-committee system I keep blabbering about. Arbcomm must also do all it can to help strengthen and reinvigorate the other mechanisms of dispute resolution such as the Mediation Committee and Cabal. If the situation becomes too bad, the ArbComm may have to deputize certain admins, who have proven especially fair-minded, capable and trustworthy over time, as Street Judges (though that decribes their function, Bailiffs is perhaps a better, official title:). Now on the question of Soft Power, I tend to be an old school realist. As one of my heroes, T.R. famously said- Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far....to do otherwise is folly, especially so in an increasingly crowded and confrontational environment.

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.


 * a) Well right now I want to be a member of the ArbComm:) Will you help me? b) I came here initially, like most, out of curiosity and for quick information on the fly. I stayed because I'd never seen a site quite like it and I discovered lurking just below the surface an equally unique and vibrant community. c) Sharing knowledge, ideas and information. d) When I can make my fellow Wikipedians think and laugh...and of course when they return the favor:). I must confess, too, I get a really special buzz when I see articles I've worked on translated into other languages. It makes me feel I'm truly reaching out and making more noble uses of my spare time than engaging in orgies of pixelated violence--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:20, 7 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 10:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Considering the subject I find it reasonably factual and accurate. Qualitywise, it does need work before it compares favorably to the Attack on Pearl Harbor. But give it a few years:). This is more a content dispute than a conduct one, so again, I don't think it is the proper place of the ArbComm to determine content. I do think it was a reasonable call to semi-protect it. It's hard enough to improve an article, harder still when it covers a highly controversial topic which is being subjected to constant vandalism. That being said, only a tiny fraction of articles fall into this area. Semi-protection, like any tool, should not be overused. There is a great temptation to do thus, just as police feel more free in applying less than lethal force when in doubt.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Question from Zoe
What is your feeling concerning the potential vote to desysop User:MONGO? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) For misuse of his administrative tools and failure to relate appropriately with other administrators, MONGO is desysopped..

failure to relate appropriately with other administrators?! What exactly is that supposed to mean? Where in Wiki policy does it state you must relate appropriately? Unless I'm mistaken, MONGO is quite popular with his peers, which indicates he must be relating to them somehow. That part of the decision needs to be rewritten with specific citations of appropriate policies. As it now stands it sounds more like something you'd hear at an Encounter group rather than a court; "Sorry, man, I just can't relate to you. I find that an invalidation, so I'm taking away your sysops privs.":) The REAL charge here is misuse of tools, specifically using blocks as weapons in an edit war, which happened nearly six months ago. In the more recent example, he only threatens to block, but does not act. In the rest he seems to be merely using his protection powers to try and cool off edit warring. The block charge is the most serious...blocks are preventative tools, not editing weapons. But this is an old charge and one which has not since been repeated, which renders it an isolated mistake. Desysopping MONGO for that is unfair, especially after taking into account all his dedicated service to the project and community as an editor and admin. The worst that should happen to him here, is that he should be reminded of WP:COOL and placed on administrative parole as Fred Bauder recommends. Also, Mr. Bauder, given his personal involvement, really should have recused himself. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 09:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)