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

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


 * I believe in the context of Wikipedia there is very little difference. If NPOV is reasonably applied to scientific articles, the mainstream scientific points of view should still receive majority weight.  Like any article, this requires good research on the subject and with some highly technical articles may be more difficult for the layman to discern.  This doesn't preclude having articles about minority points of view or subjects that are science-like but not accepted by the scientific community.  In these cases, its simple to clearly state the view is not accepted by the majority of scientists (like Time Cube) or that there is no basis in science for the claims (like Homeopathy). The current arbitration case should help to clarify WP:NPOV in these types of situations. Shell babelfish 00:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Question(s) 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? ·maclean 04:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have never been an official mediator or advocate, though I frequently act in either capacity because of the work I choose to do on Wikipedia. I have helped out in some Cabal cases, answered a few 3Os and participated in article and user RfCs both answering and initiating.  A good example of a little bit of everything was the work with the Shiloh Shepherd Dog article which spanned many months.


 * Honestly, I hadn't thought about the Mediation Committee considering the Cabal tends to get a bit more of the flow. However, if they're in need of assistance, I would definately consider that option. Shell babelfish 17:02, 11 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.
 * I'm not sure how to answer this question. I have faith that our community understands the function of ArbCom and chooses the editors they believe understand the project and can represent the community's wishes when making decisions.  We've come a long way towards handling the clear cases with community bans, probations or blocks and leaving the more convoluted cases for ArbCom to sort out.

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?
 * I'd politely decline. While working for ArbCom means making decisions based on what we think the community wants, there's still others looking at the situation who can advise if I'm off base.  While I would try to have the best interests of the project in mind, I'd not presume I'm infallible.  In an alternate dimension, I'd like to fix the reliable sources guideline to more accurately reflect current use.

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?
 * Yes, I understand what both are for and have requested both before. I don't think there's much of a backlog for either at the moment, but I'd have no difficulties assisting there as well.

4. What is integrity, accountability and transparency to you on the ArbCom?
 * Integrity is the same as it is for me every day; specifically relating to the ArbCom it would involve being fair, honest and open; approaching each case with a clear head and the best interests of the project in mind.
 * Accountability and transparency go hand in hand. Maintaining transparency unless privacy concerns are involved is one method of oversight that allows the community to hold the ArbCom and individual arbitrators accountable for their actions.  Part of tranperancy is having the evidence and documentation behind a case available for review; another part is the current process - decisions list applicable community principles and findings based on the evidence and then remedies derived from those.  Anyone can review a case, see the process behind the decision and work back to the original evidence.

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?
 * Humor is a great part of being a community and also a great teaching tool. Silliness like WP:SPIDER,  Assume bad faith or How to win an argument may calm a situation while gently imparting the idea that someone is behaving like a dick.  Not everyone is going to find them funny during a heated debate, but we need as many tools in our dispute resolution arsenal as we can find.


 * Vandalizing articles just to get in WP:BJAODN should be frowned upon - create it in your own userspace ;) Alternately, there's also some lists like List of jokes considered clichés that probably aren't necessary due to reference problems. Shell babelfish 17:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

@ Thank you for your answers! :) - Mailer Diablo 23:09, 14 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?


 * The only situations I can image that would lead me to resign would be a family emergency that would require my time for a long period or if the community lost faith in my ability to represent them when making decisions.
 * Given the types of issues that ArbCom deals with, I imagine its a mostly thankless job. Its likely that regardless of the outcome, some parties will be unhappy with your decision and may voice that disappointment in inappropriate ways.  I deal with these types of situations by doing something other than Wikipedia - sometimes its a cup of tea, a phone call, a movie or even a bubble bath.  I'm a fan of not feeding the trolls, using the delete key when appropriate and if I can't say anything nice, not saying anything at all.  I've sometimes stopped in the middle of typing a response and simply closed the window - I can always come back when I feel like I have a clear head.

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 think that research is one of an arbitrator's responsibilities. I have the good fortune to live near a college and have spoken with teachers and students before to clarify my understanding of a dispute; I think we also have a wealth of resources just in Wikipedia's volunteer editors.  Obviously arbitrator's can't be experts in every case, but they can amass enough information about cases in front of them to make reasonable decisions.  I would trust other arbitrators to use due dilegence as well. Shell babelfish 19:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Question(s) from xaosflux

 * 1) As functions assigned by ArbCom, describe your view on the assignments of Oversight and Checkuser permissions, including thresholds for (or even the possibility of) new applicants. (Question from —  xaosflux  Talk 20:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the consensus of the community is still to give Oversight and Checkuser to as few trusted contributors as necessary. Based on that, I would imagine that looking at new applicants would only become a necessity if we start seeing a backlog for either use.  With the new focus on the quality of the encylopedia, its possible that editors will be finding more out-of-the-way biographies with problems that could use oversight, however, there seem to be enough people with the permission to adequately handle it even if the frequency does increase.  Checkuser requests have lately been completely in a very timely manner and I don't forsee any major increase in the number of requests there. Shell babelfish 12:39, 13 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?) :-)
 * I'd have to give you +120 points for sheer eeeeeeevilness. ;)


 * 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?
 * I think the community has been clear in the past about limiting the scope of the ArbCom (lest it turn into something similar to the American Congress *shudders*). Unless there's hanky-panky involved in determining the consensus for that proposal such as spamming or disruption, I don't  believe, in its current scope, that the committee can assist in the case.  If the disputants cannot reach a consensus, more of the community needs to be involved or the proposal should be scrapped; ArbCom shouldn't be put in the position to determine the communities will when precendent doesn't already exist.  I think the idea of consensus as supermajority has crept into more frequent usage, when contributors ought to be reviewing consensus decision making to understand what is expected.
 * 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?
 * Unfortunately I believe ArbCom is frequently seen as the highest ruling body, absent intervention from the Foundation. I don't believe this was the original intent and I don't think a consensus exists to expand that scope.  While ArbCom may determine to remove the admin bit, this should be done as a result of misconduct.  Once this bit is removed, current consensus holds that the editor needs to return to RfA and allow the community to weigh in on reinstatement.  In the Giano case, I think the ArbCom appropriately limited its remedies to the misconduct involved.  Having seen some of the comments surrounding Carnildo's RfA, I believe that had he apologized in a manner that his detractors could accept, consensus discussion could have continued forward and likely led to his resysopping.
 * 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'm not sure the ArbCom has mentioned service in their final decisions, but they have talked about mitigating circumstances and instead of probation or banning they've chosen to counsel, caution or warn contributors who have otherwise good histories. I think there is a vast difference between editors who frequently engage in problematic behavior and those who have the odd lapse of judgement.  Many times there's a difference in how the two groups would accept sanctions - for instance, an editor with a good history who becomes involved in a dispute and makes some mistakes often realizes and admits to those mistakes; editors who engage in repeatative misconduct most likely feel the behavior isn't a problem.  I believe fitting the sanction to the individual is more productive.
 * 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
 * Neither. Experienced contributors, regardless of where that experience lies, may be treated differently, either receiving a harsher sanction since they should know better or possibly a lighter sentence due to just having an odd incident in otherwise healthy contributions.  There are many factors to consider when deciding the appropriate measures to curtail problematic behavior or editing; I don't think featured article editors vs. admins is one of the lines that can be drawn.
 * 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.)
 * One of the cases I saw that I thought missed the mark a bit was an older on involving Avala. While the ArbCom dealt with editing against consensus and a lack of sources I believe a sanction against reverting and probation from FAC would also have been appropriate.  It appears that Avala had voluntarily stopped most of his editing by the time the case wound up which may have influenced the decision.
 * Another example would be the Louis Epstein case. I think that allowing blocks for his use of non-standard punctuation was too harsh; given the discussion from Louis, I don't believe any method would have led him to stop his behavior and blocking would only acerbate the situation.  A more creative solution eventually came about when Babajobu agreed to fix Louis's punctuation; it would have been nice for the article editors worried about Louis's punctuation to have stepped up and done this themselves instead of bringing this to ArbCom and I think the committee should have pushed back over what appears to be a minor disruption.
 * Finally, in the case involving Zen-master, I would have strongly disagreed that his incivil and strong statements of his position were persistant personal attacks. I think his edits fell well below the usual level of attacking that results in a week long ban.
 * 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 think its Fred filling in a hole that currently exists as best he can. As you mentioned, the proposals may get rejected or refined by other Arbitrators but he does seem to do most of the legwork.  I think he has a great deal of experience with the process and devotes a great deal of effort to ArbCom.  I'd like to see some other Arbitrators step up and assist - while Fred's experience and willingness are highly commendable, a single person creating some much of the process can lead to staleness.  If elected, I would like to assist in creating wording for decisions, not only to give Fred a bit of a breather, but to bring in some new perspective.
 * 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) 15:00, 13 November 2006
 * I think experienced editors, regardless of bit status, can be valuable to the ArbCom. Problems like the viewing of deleted articles can be resolved via the mailing list or other work-arounds.  While the community may not have had their say on trusting them with admin tools, they still have the opportunity to show their level of trust via the voting in this election.  Whether or not the person didn't want the extra duties or wasn't ready for them is something the community will have to take into account when voting.  I'm not sure that non-administrators specifically need representation; the ArbCom isn't a ruling or law-making body - regular editors can have their say in policy and precedent through our consensus process. Shell babelfish 17:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Sugaar

 * When a resolution is made by either an administrator or the ArbCom, do you think that the resolution should be made clear enough as to leave no (or the leser possible) remain of doubt in the involved parties, quoting the corresponding paragraphs of wikipolicies that apply if relevant?
 * I'm sure everyone tries. This is why administrator's have talk pages and the ArbCom has a section on the front page for clarification - just in case any questions should come up.


 * When a user is disconform with an administrator resolution, do you think the administrator must facilitate that user's knowledge of the steps he/she can follow to appeal such resolution?
 * I think a lot of people try to be helpful in that manner. In your case, four seperate admins tried to help you resolve your concerns in the correct manner.


 * When there are conflicting reslutions in a single case, do you think that archiving that case without a clear resolution is correct?
 * I believe you misunderstand the purpose of WP:PAIN. It is not to debate incidents and not part of the dispute resolution process; it is simply to report ongoing personal attacks - very similar to how WP:AIV is for listing ongoing vandalism.  Even the instructions for the page say that comments not part of the process will be removed and aging issues will be removed.  Since three different admins removed your repost and councelled you on how to resolve your concerns, I believe current consensus is to remove reports when the situation is resolved.


 * If confronted between the civility and NPOV policies of Wikipedia, which do think it is most important? --Sugaar 13:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Neither is more important; they deal with vastly different areas, so you're comparing apples to oranges. NPOV is how we deal with articles, how we write them and the tone we use.  CIV is how we deal with other editors, how we interact and the tone we use.  Both are vitally important to project. On a side note, I hope that your post to ANI has given you some closure on this incident. Shell babelfish 18:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you've chosen to continue this issue. You were advised by me on the 9th about ANI, the WP:PAIN page itself clearly states how to handle disputes, Paul Cyr also advised you about proper handling of the situation and you even mentioned the board yourself when threatening me with further action. Instead you chose to first try ArbCom, then formal mediation and after all were soundly rejected finally use the proper approach. After all that the good folks an ANI simply repeated what I had spent 4 days telling you. You seem to misremember a great deal of the discussion we had and are now posting incorrect statements in multiple places - you may wish to review the entire discussion which is still available on my talk page. Shell babelfish 00:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear: there have been misunderstandings and I am partly responsible. I assume my part of responsability and hope you do the same on what belongs to you. I have never been satisfied with three contradictory resolutions and, instead of getting the lesser penalty (mild and shaded reprobation), getting the heaviest one. But it's not only your fault but also that of the system, as far as I see it. I am deleting my other latest comments as they may not fully do justice to your actuation.

--Sugaar 18:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Question(s) from Dakota
If elected to the Arbitration Committee will you continue active editing? Will you not lose interest in contributing to articles. Will you be available to any users who seek your help or advice.

-- Dakota 13:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Contributing to articles is one of my stress relievers. When I start to feel burned out after answering hundreds of emails or sorting and deleting hundreds of photos without licensing, I often take a break by finding some odd corner of the wiki, researching and expanding the article.  I've found some interesting biographies, played with kids shows and even spruced up the odd town or two.  I find its a good way to clear my head :)


 * I'm always available to help other users; I currently work with Esperanza as a mentor and admin coach. The admin coaching program has received some criticism, but I believe its more about taking people who already have good qualities and mentoring them in policy and actual proactice as opposed to teaching people what makes a good admin.  I have rejected candidates before based on that belief.  Also, I've got instant messaging and other contacts listed on my talk page that will always be available. Shell babelfish 18:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from JzG
Open-mindedness and the ability to revise one's own position in response to new evidence seems to me to be an important factor in considering ArbCom cases. Can you please provide an example of a situation where your initial judgement of a situation turned out to be wrong, and show how you dealt with it?
 * Since this is a recent example and I don't want to embarass anyone, I'm going to avoid using editors names.


 * Tom was originally warned for persistent personal attacks; when discussing this with me, he mentioned that Harry (who made the report on PAIN) had left standard warning templates after my warning. Tom had already agreed to stop using the language that caused me to warn him and pointed out that his discussion on the talk page of the disputed article had been more civil; he was very disturbed and claimed the bogus tags were impeding his ability to resolve the dispute.  I looked over the recent discussion on the article talk page (where all the problems had occurred before) and decided that more warning templates for NPA were overkill; Tom had been considerably more civil since my warning.  Since Tom was so concerned about the templates, I removed them from his talk page and asked Harry not to leave blanket template warnings especially when there were no clear incidents.


 * Later that day, in speaking with Harry, it turned out that a mediator assisting with the content dispute at the article had created a sub-page. Tom was now using this forum to continue his attacks. It was my fault; I should have checked his contribs instead of just looking where Tom pointed me, but I suppose we all fall victim of assuming good faith in others sometimes.  After reviewing the posts Harry was warning about, there was no doubt they were very clear personal attacks.  I removed my note from Harry's page about bogus warnings, but reminded him that standard templates aren't always the best way to deal with things and asked Tom to take a breather, read our NPA policy and since the mediator had already warned him, gave him some examples of how to object to the content without mentioning the contributor.


 * I've also rethought policy ideas as well - for instance at first glance, it seemed like a good idea to semi-protect all policy pages. However, after later running some statistics, most reversions of policy (except for a few targets like WP:VAND and WP:BLOCK) were from regular contributors who disagreed over the content.  So, nice on paper, but in reality not really doing much for us - I changed my mind.


 * We can all make mistakes - we can be misled, misunderstand or just have a fuzzy brain one day. Or, like playing Pictionary, sometimes the Earth looks an awful lot like an orange before you draw the continents in.  Its important to be able to distance ourselves from the situations we deal with so that we're always able to reverse direction when necessary. Shell babelfish 18:29, 16 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'd need a bit more information to know exactly what you're asking here. If its a case where an editor had a lapse of judgment, it depends on the severity of the lapse, whether or not its a repetitive problem and sometimes whether or not the editor realizes they've made a mistake.  What would be done depends greatly on the particular situation - I don't think there's a one size fits all approach.

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


 * Largely unpopular and consensus decision making are usually mutually exclusive. However, in the case that a decision was made as directed by the Foundation, I think the best thing to do was present as much information as we can, explain where the decision came from and why it was made and answer any questions as best we can.

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


 * When I'm looking at cleaning up an article, it goes something like this:


 * 1) Should this article be on Wikipedia? This involves notability and WP:NOT.
 * 2) Is there any copyrighted text that can quickly and easily be removed? If the entire history is a copyvio, report it and move on.
 * 3) Is this a biography? If so, are there any problematic statements or other concerns with WP:BLP?
 * 4) What facts need sources? Does the article have good references or should I find some?  Are the sources all good quality?
 * 5) Were any of the non-sourced statements or remaining text original research? Have any other references been mashed together to create an opinion?
 * 6) Now that we've done the easy ones, how does the article read? Is it written neutrally and factually?  Are any minority positions over weighted?


 * That's not really precedence, I suppose, but its the method I use. Its more about easiest to determine vs. harder to determine.  If you leave whether or not the article even belongs in Wikipedia till later, you've wasted time.  Anyways, that's how I work when improving articles. Shell babelfish 19:53, 17 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 12:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I think the community is capable of judging maturity and competence both of which have very little to do with age.

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 12:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * While I would have to speak with the admins involved about particular cases, I would say there seems to be little reason to block an account which hasn't been active for many months. Unfortunately, I know the websites of which you speak and I'd have to say that their viewpoints tend to be a little to incredibly skewed, so its probably best to thoroughly investigate any claims they make.  Please remember that RfCs and ArbCom cases take some time and may result in a late block - other incidents later brought to life may also result in a decision to ban a particular account; of course the block summary should definitely reflect the actual reason.

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 12:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope you're referring to people who are banned and not just those who've been blocked. In the case of users who have been banned by community consensus or ArbCom, there isn't really a reason to maintain a record of their userpage or talk page since they will no longer be contributing to the project.  There may be cases whether one or the other is thought to be disruptive and there have been cases of banned users attempting to create further disruption via their talk pages.  I don't think there's currently a hard and fast rule that banned users pages are automatically deleted.

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 12:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think there's a difference between named accounts and anonymous talk pages. If someone with an account wants to blank their page, its probably not a very nice thing to do just to avoid dealing with a particular issue, but that's what histories are for.  If necessary, we can refer to the edits in the history to show warnings in a report somewhere or to point out relevant discussion on another talk page.  I think blanking behavior is also something that may reflect poorly on an editor - for instance, if their conduct is brought to an RfC or ArbCom, quickly removing warnings or other things that hamper discussion may be mentioned as part of the behavioral problem.


 * For anonymous accounts, I'd prefer that warnings be put back if blanked. This doesn't mean they have to stay there forever, but if an IP is in the middle of a spree of vandalism, the warnings should stay there to make things easier for those fighting the vandalism and eventually blocking them.

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 12:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Users banned from contributing do not need communication with the project. Email addresses are readily available if someone would like to appeal their ban at any time.

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 12:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think they have. Take, for instance, Giano or Ed Poor 1 and 2. Shell babelfish 13:16, 27 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 23:38, 1 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 20:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course. As much as I would like to support some of the other candidates who I think will do a wonderful job, I planned on abstaining completely to avoid any appearance of impropriety. Shell babelfish 21:17, 2 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 will continue to offer statements in ArbCom cases where I believe I Have helpful information. I will also continue to support other aspects of the dispute resolution process and mediate disputes as they arise; helping resolve cases earlier in the process can't be a bad thing.

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]]?


 * That's quite a loaded question. I've intentionally avoided any commentary on other candidates because I don't believe that this election should be about running against other editors.  I've offered my services and time because I think I can help the community in that way - I suppose that's not much in the way of a campaign in the traditional sense; there are many other qualified candidates as well.  I personally feel that campaign banners, userboxes and similar things fall into the category of harmless fun - so long as they aren't disruptive and the community doesn't express a consensus against them, I don't think they hurt anything.

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.


 * We all make mistakes at times. For instance, I screwed up by not taking a break during the final phases of a long and nasty content dispute I was mediating - as a result, I got snippy with a few editors and told them I was tired of their silly behavior.  True, maybe, but not the best way to handle it.  Intervening in content disputes, especially where there is misbehavior by some of the editors involved can be a difficult thing.  I'm sure I've made mistakes in the past trying to cool down disputes, but I hope I've always gone back and corrected them where ever possible.

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.


 * Through this process I've learned that a number of editors feel I have blocked too quickly when dealing with established editors. I would like to apologize for anyone I've offended; I understand that the general consensus was the ScienceApologist did not need to be blocked and things should have been handled differently.  I believe the block of Sugaar has been incredibly misrepresented and frankly lied about in several forums.  I encourage other editors to investigate his claims for themselves since during the month long ordeal and two posts to AN/I, not a single other editor agreed with his interpretation of events.

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 the first thing we need to do is try to incorporate new editors into the Wikipedia culture. This is a new experience for many of the editors that find their way here, especially those that are directed by an outside request.  There are some cases in which an editor's style and temperament are ill-suited for our community even after they learn the ropes.  Sometimes these editors can be mentored or will change their behavior after its made clear that certain things are not acceptable.  We've come a long way in allowing the community to have a say in bans and now even article bans which makes dealing with problematic behaviors an easier process.  Dispute resolution mechanisms like RfC and eventually ArbCom are always an option when other avenues have been exhausted.

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 just want to contribute. I used Wikipedia only as a reference until the idea of "Requested Articles" caught my eye.  I saw a request for an oddball art-deco building (it was a prison of all things) that I knew a bit about.  I read up on how Wikipedia worked and immediately got hooked.  I enjoy finding new corners of the Wiki and learning as I add, update or clean up.  I've also enjoyed watching the community and seeing how ideas in macro-psychology work in an online environment.  I stay because ultimately, I feel strongly about supporting the project.  Providing information to the public and allowing the world to collaborate on that information is an admirable goal.

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 10:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The article on 9/11 and other controversial articles are always going to be difficult for the community. Opinions are very polarized; its difficult not to have a strong opinion on such a significant event.  As an editor, I have consciously avoided the article - I have a very personal connection with the tragedy which I believe would make writing about it very difficult and would hinder an already difficult editing situation.  I applaud the dedicated editors who have worked to reach consensus on the article and its offshoots; it has been a long and unrewarding process.  Many good editors have had to take time off or even leave the project after being burned out by the constantly warring factions these types of articles produce.  I think in regards to "ever burning" editorials that there are times we, as a community, have to come to a point that we feel the article is as fair and accurate as we can make it and almost discourage further changes in an attempt to preserve sanity.

Question from Zoe
What is your feeling concerning the potential vote to desysop User:MONGO? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Mongo has been an incredible asset to the community for some time. Unfortunately, in this case, the evidence has shown a few instances where admin tools were clearly used in an inappropriate way.  Historically the ArbCom has desysopped several administrators who used their privileges to control a content dispute they were involved in, so the potential vote isn't much of a surprise.  The conflict that Mongo and others are involved in over the set of 9/11 articles is an incredible mess - its a hot-button issue and the same arguments have been going on for what seems like ages.  As much as I can understand the rising frustration the involved editors must feel, I don't think we can turn a blind eye to misuse of the tools.  I think this is one decision the Committee members are going to regret having to make, but there is little else that can be done. Shell babelfish 01:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)