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

Questions from Brian New Zealand

 * I will be asking the same questions to every candidate thus they do not specifically target you


 * Do you hold any strong political or religious opinions (e.g. concerning George Bush, Islam etc) If so, would you recluse yourself from cases centred on these?


 * How would you handle a case in which you were personally involved?


 * How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"?


 * How many hours a month do you think you will need to be a good Arbitrator and are you really willing to put in the time?


 *  Do you think that someone who is critical of Arbitration Committee decisions is in violation of WP:AGF?


 *  If chosen, you will need to arbitrate on disputes arising from the creation or revision of articles. Experience of creating and revising articles yourself, particularly where it has involved collaboration, is very valuable in understanding the mindset of disputants who come to arbitration. With reference to your own edits in the main article namespace, please demonstrate why you think you have the right experience to be a good arbitrator?


 * What are your views with regards to transparency of ArbCom decisions?


 * Do you think that administrators should be treated differently to non-administrators in ArbCom decisions? Brian | (Talk) 03:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) I'm (mildly) conservative, and not an extremist in any form, I will keep as neutral as possible on most issues, any that I can't I won't partake in. But I am aware that some people do have their own opinions and I wouldn't think of not taking a "case" just because it's controversial; I see it as a challenge
 * 2) I don't really understand the second question, but I'll take a stab at it and say I wouldn't get involved with ones I’m personally involved in
 * 3) I take everything on WP on a case-by-case basis. Generally, I’d like to go with the flow, but in some situations I would contest the other Arbitrators decisions, It would just depend on the decision and if I disagree with it or not
 * 4) I think the hours I put in now are a healthy amount of time to put in to be a good Arbitrator. I do spend a lot of time logged in but not doing anything so I think that I could fill that time up doing ArbCom stuff
 * No, I will do my best to avoid going anywhere near accusing that. By disagreeing with the ArbCom's verdict (or the ArbCom) itself those user's are exercising their right to free speech, and I think that the ArbCom should think about whether they are Assuming Good Faith when they accuse other user's of not doing it.
 * 1) I am a prominent member of WP:BLA an active member of the Good Article Wikiproject and I recently joined WP:FILM and WP:RU. All these involve a lot of collaboration and I think a good example of my skills in this field are my assistance in creating some WP:BLA standards. I have reviewed about 30 GA's (I think) and have only really been challenged on my Failing of an article once. Now my main contributions involve the Metal Gear pages. I have had pretty much all of my disputes there, the early one on the Solid Snake talk page was one over the image and I was clearly in the minority but refused to concede defeat until very late. Following that experience I have always tried to champion the feelings of the masses and I think WP:CON will play a large part in my dispute resolving. I have also won many disputes and I think my long history of being involved in them will help me be a good Arbitrator and see both sides of the coin
 * 2) I belive it is very important and should not be looked at lightly by anyone
 * 3) I think Admins should not be given special treatment because they are Admins. I am strongly opposed to the Abuse of Admin power and I see using your weight as an Admin to get things to swing in your favour as Abuse of Admin power

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'll use the one over whether Gray Fox should have been merged into List of recurring Metal Gear characters, this got nasty with personal attacks being thrown both ways. I had the consensus but eventually gave out to the another policy. This situation was too ugly and i see it as a skidmark in the underpants if my WP career. If we had sought out help from ArbCom I could have avoided that situation but since we didn't I have to live with it forever and It will no doubt come back to bite me in my RfA. This is why people need to think long and hard about voting, as at ArbCom we can help you enjoy your time at WP much better.

1a. (When) To recuse or not to recuse. That is the question.
 * Rescue when each party has WP policy on their side, the dispute has escalated well above the normally accepted level, or (of course) when all avenues other than WP:ARBCOM have been walked down to no avail

1b. Huh? I mean recuse. Not rescue.

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 don't think I'd delete any, I haven't come across any I don't like enough to want deleted, I'd make a few changes to WP:FICT but that would be it

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, and yes. (Don't need any more do I?)

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

Questions from Fys

 * 1) I will be asking the same three questions to every candidate. 'Arbitration' is a process of dispute resolution. If the parties to an arbitration, after it has gone to the committee, manage to resolve the dispute or any part of it themselves, would you continue the case or that part of it? If so, why, and if not, why not? Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 09:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Odd question. No I would drop the case if the entire dispute is resolved, if it's only partially resolved i'd continue
 * 1) What role do you believe private discussions between the parties and members of the committee should play in determining the outcome of Arbitration cases? Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 09:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am all for people taking it on their own and having private discussions to solve disputes. For me it's all about the outcome, not the process.
 * 1) Take a look at Probation. Under what circumstances should users who have not had any restrictions on their editing imposed, be removed from probation? Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 09:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If they can prove they have mended their ways, if other users call for the user to be taken from probation, provided they to have proof that they have changed

Additional Questions

 * 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. —  xaosflux  Talk 14:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I would use oversight as it is stated at Oversight, and I see it as a way to keep the privacy that each user should have. As for checkuser I see this as an effective method of finding Sockpuppets and locating troublesome users


 * 1) A standard question I'm asking all the candidates. What steps can be taken to reduce the delays in the arbitration process? Newyorkbrad 19:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Another standard question I'm asking everyone. If elected, do you anticipate being actively involved in drafting the actual decisions of cases? Do you have any writing experience that would be relevant to this activity? Newyorkbrad 03:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)