Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for The prophet wizard of the crayon cake

It may take me a while to answer a few of the harder ones... because of all that "thinking" stuff I' ll need to do. -- The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake  16:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

and... here's the gigantic list-of-every-mediated-case-I've-done... many of which are small and insignifigant and probably not very informative:

(Import Note: Much of the real discussions take place on article talk pages, not these links. Use these links to trace back to the discussion that takes place on another talk page.''')
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-20 Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-16 Neo-Tech (philosophy)
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-01 St. Chris IMD
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-13 Conservatism
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-24 Tewfik harrassment of Cerejota
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-24 Category use and misuse
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-04 Scally
 * Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-03 Mosaic: World News from the Middle East
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-08 Macedonism
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-22 Michael Di Biase
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-11 Eiorgiomugini and Keahapana on Chinese dictionaries articles
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-08 List of Publications in Philosopy - Ayn Rand
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-14 Increasingly tense encounters
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-25 Norman Lowell
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-21 Death Valley Driver Video Review
 * Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-05 Wikipedia:WOT
 * Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-16 User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-16 Disemvoweling
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-10 Carmen Electra
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-03 Kingdom of Asturias
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-05 Bullshit

I rarely do anything outside of Mediation Cabal stuff... so this (and related talk pages) is where you'll see me in action the most. Please make the most informed decision you can in the election... I loathe politics completely, so I'll try to keep this as non-political as possible. Thanks! -- The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake  16:15, 7 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 really sure about this one. I really don't keep track of major Wikipedia incidents and occurances, so I'm a bit out of "the know" on this kind of stuff. In general though, I think a wise informed decision is always important (when plausible), regardless of what the decision involves.

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?
 * Oooh, nice question. Well, if I were in this freaky bizzaro Jimbo-gives-me-strange-priveledges universe you speak of, I honestly have no clue. Maybe I'm just indifferent (or boring), but I really can't think of anything I absolutely despise about Wikipedia policy at the moment. Eh, if I had to scramble for an answer, maybe get rid of notability? I don't really think notability is nessicary, as verifiability sort of eliminates the need to label things as notable or not. But yeah, that's just an "if I had to pick one" decision, so I don't really feel too strongly about that.  The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake  21:52, 6 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?
 * Nope. I haven't read the policies on checkuser and oversight, but after a brief skimming of the checkuser policy, I'd feel pretty confident using it. Pretty common-sense stuff really. I'd honestly be afraid to mess with something as controversial as oversight though, so I can't really guarantee I would use (or want to have) that sort of power.  The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake  21:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

4. What is integrity, accountability and transparency to you on the ArbCom?
 * Integrity - To be reliable and honest, yet understanding and considerate. A mix of honesty and civility.
 * Accountability - All actions create a consequence, and (assuming good faith) people have good-faith motivations for what they do unless given evidence of malignant intent.
 * Transparency - Unfeigned and open. - The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake  21:52, 6 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?
 * Humor can be a touchy subject for something like Wikipedia. While everyone can agree that there's nothing wrong with a little fun now and then, there's a divergence in opinion on where this fun should occur. Some say that an encyclopedia is not a place for humor, and some say that without humor Wikipedia would be a pretty drab and dismal place to spend your time. It seems that both mindsets are partially true; I do believe that an encyclopedia shouldn't contain too much in the realm of humor (which could potentially create ambiguity in the content of articles), but I also think that it's all just harmless fun and makes Wikipedia a spiffier place to hang around, as long as lines aren't crossed. If no one is terribly offended and if the mindless fun doesn't creep into the article namespace, I don't see anything wrong with it (I'd actually even encourage it!). -- The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake  21:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Chacor

 * Why should people be inclined to vote for you, given the short time you've been with Wikipedia? Specifically, why should we trust you with oversight, checkuser and the tools to pass judgements against others?
 * Hmmm... I wouldn't nessicarily call half a year a short time being here, although it might be short in an Arbcom-candidate context. Why should you vote for me? Hmmm... I guess your reasons would vary, and I don't really want to force reasons down your throat or anything, so I'll just let people make their own choice. - The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake  21:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What is your opinion of ex-admins who have not voluntarily given up their sysophood? Do you think they should be resysopped at AC's will, or do you think that they should go through another RfA? What are your thoughts on the current re-adminship process for involuntarily-desysopped admins? – Chacor 09:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer a more community-reaching decision process like RfA than ArbCom... although it might be interesting to see what would happen if we used a hybrid RfA-ArbCom process to resysop old admins. -  The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake  21:51, 6 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 12:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Well I sort of take everything on a case-by-case basis, so it'll be hard to define any sort of "guideline" I would use for checkuser and/or oversight. The checkuser policy is pretty simple stuff, used for the identification of suspected sockpuppets/common-vandals and the like, so applicants simply need to have a smidgeon of trustability and display of good intent. Oversight should be pretty restricted in who can use it though, with similar qualifications needed but to a much higher degree. Mailer Diablo asked a similar question as well, so you might want to check out my answer to that one too. -- The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake  16:22, 7 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?
 * 2) (Argh, so many tough questions you give me!!! :P) I believe the answer is, like most things, one that should be considered case-by-case-ish-ly. In general, it is not ArbCom's function to conduct and create policy, and under most circumstances it shouldn't be able to ever construct unfavored policy. Of course, nothing can be apprehended so generally, and an ignore-all-rules-ish approach needs to be considered in certain, very rare, scenarios. As for that specific case, I don't think it would be a good idea for ArbCom to issue a policy change, however this may not always be the case in future, more controversial, cases. By default (and pretty much always), everything should be done by the consensus of Wikipedians. -- The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake  02:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) 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?
 * 4)  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?
 * 5) If you agree with the above point, which service to the encyclopedia is more valuable - administration, or writing very good articles? For example, what happens when two editors, an administrator and a good article writer, come into conflict and/or commit a similar infraction - how should they be treated? Note that there are relatively the same number of current administrators and featured articles on the Wikipedia - about 1000 - however, while relatively few administrators have been de-adminned, many former featured articles have been de-featured, so there have been noticeably more featured articles written than administrators made. This is a really tough one to answer without offending at least one important group of people, and I will understand if you weasel your way out of answering it, but it was one of the issues brought up in the recent Requests_for_arbitration/Giano, so you can imagine it may come up again.
 * I don't really think either are more valuable than the other. We need good article writers to make our articles even worthwhile, but without janitors we can't regulate and stabilize the encyclopedia editing process. Conversely, janitorization is nessicary to root out problems and keep the peace, but without writers we might as well be spending our time cleaning up lunchroom vomit. (No I do not expect you to understand what I just said :P   )
 * As for treatment, both should be treated with the same fairness and consideration. Janitoring is a thankless, important job, but so it normal editing. Both member groups should be treated with the same amount of scrutiny. (P.S. I'm entirely too indifferent on this to be offensive to anyone. :D )
 * 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.)
 * 2) 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?
 * 3) 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) 17:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

A possibly unanswerable question from ➨ ЯEDVERS
Why have I never come across you on Wikipedia before? I ask for information only. ➨  ЯEDVERS  22:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably because you've never treaded around in the Mediation Cabal. I'm a terrible article writer, can't contribute any valid information, and cleanup is entirely too tedious for me. So I pretty much deal only with user conflicts as my cup of tea.


 * The answer to your question, in wise-man form:"It is only that which is in plain sight that one fails to see" -- The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake  22:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

More questions

 * 1) Could you please explain your username? Note: In fairness the person I first asked, I am asking this of several others so if it seems odd, I apologize. Anomo 21:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure can't. First thing that popped into my head... I've used the internet psuedonym "CakeProphet" practically ever since joining Wikipedia. -- The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray  on Cake  00:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Ragesoss
In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?
 * A point of view that is neutral is one that does not conform to the viewpoint of a group, rather explaining the world through a detatched voice, and when nessicary pointing out the various differences and disagreements between these points of view. A point of view that is scientific is one that uses the currently accepted (and sometimes, not-so-accepted) theories and laws observed and described by empirical science. So where should we draw the line between neutral and scientifically-biased? This is a very touchy subject, so it must be considered very carefully before any decisions or actions are taken. I can easily see how depicting science as an absolute truth in an article can introduce aneutrality, as there are many other paradigms of thought that would sometimes disagree with the research of empirical science. On the other hand, there are some areas of science that could be considered, in a sense, consentially neutral. Where we distinguish the difference between scientific data that is "neutral" and scientific data that is "disputed" then becomes the problem. I think it should be taken on in a context of the scientific datas "controversialness". The basic laws of physics, which are for the most part universally accepted and tested, could be safely included in an article with little fear of tarnishing the neutrality of the article. However, something as controversial as, let's say, the theory of evolution through natural selection (yes, I went for The Big One), might need to be included in a way that does not depict it as Absolute Truthtm, but rather as the viewpoint of a group. While I personally believe that evolunary theory is almost certaintly proven to be true, many do not, and so we must take this into consideration when including the theory's explaination of things into an article. Wikipedia should not judge things as Truth (which is what science does), it should only report what others judge to be Truth. -- The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake  15:28, 11 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?
 * Hmmm... I'm not exactly sure what would be a reason for my resignation. Obviously arbitration has the potential to be stressful, dealing with all the worst case scenarios and giving a clear and definite "yes" or "no" would definetely be difficult. In general, though, I seem to have something of a tolerance for dealing with these sorts of things, and I never really got tired of working with the difficult situations that could pop up in the Mediation Cabal (often times the stopping place for nasty situations before being brought up to ArbCom). I'm simply too indifferent to be overly sensitive to conflicts I'm not involved in :P. While I'm not a crystal ball, I don't think it would be too likely that I would resign due to animosity from others, as that too could occur (maybe on a smaller scale) with MedCab work. *shrug* not really sure.

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?


 * Accuracy is a subjective thing, really. If information whose validity is questioned arised in one of the disputes, I would most likely use verifiability as my staff of judgement. Wikipedia uses verifiability instead of "truth" as its critera for inclusion. We will never truly be able to say if something or someone is perfectly accurate, the entire concept of accuracy is far too subjective to even have a clear-cut answer, but we can easily document the existence of this information, and easily document the existence of disagreement with this information (in doing so preserving a Neutral Point of View). As for myself, I have very little specialized knowledge, so I highly doubt I would hold some secret golden apple of knowledge that no one else on the Arbitration Committee would possess. :P

Thanks for asking! (All of these questions are strangely fun to answer) -- The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray  on Cake  01:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Inane Question from Stifle
Would you consider converting your signature to something shorter because the current one is long and messy?
 * Eh, if it annoys you I could consider changing it, sure. O.O  The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray  on Cake  01:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Question(s) from maclean
You are currently a mediator at Mediation Cabal. How did you discover the Mediation Cabal? Why do you continue to participate there? Why do you want to switch to the Arbitration Committee? If not successful with the Arbitration Committee, will you continue with the Mediation Cabal?


 * I found the Mediation Cabal, unremarkably enough, by clicking on a link that led to it. After reading the front page of the user group, I was interested in joining. ...pretty extraordinary, I know. My main reason for staying there is basically the fact that I can't do anything else, and it's sort of fun and interesting to deal with conflicts of various types. and while I was hoping I could continue mediating at MedCab while in ArbCom, that might cause some raised eyebrows. But yes, if ArbCom doesn't work, I'll continue with MedCab, simply because I like doing stuff there. -- The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake  00:24, 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 13:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'm something of a metapedian anyways... and very very few of my edits are article related at all, so my actual contribution to articles is very slim. Most of my wikipedianisms are direct towards conflict resolution stuff. and yes, I will always be around for those who may need help (particularly if you're having some inter-user conflicts) -- The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake  00:28, 15 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!) 13:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This happens all the time for me, both off-wiki and during mediation. While it would take far too long to list the numerous cases of faulty judgement, I can remember distinctly a case I recently had entitled "Increasingly tense encounters". The exact situation I can't recall, but the two parties were generally at odds about a very insignifigant thing. While I'm generally as ambivalent as possible when mediating a case, I couldn't help but initially feel that zer0faults was being overly uncooperative, but I later realized the other party in the dispute was being uncooperative as well. Fortunately my bias didn't tangle up the case too much, and it ended with a calm ceasefire due to (for the most part) cooperative efforts on both ends of the dispute. Not a very signifigant slip, but still a slip nontheless. -- The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake  22:00, 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 believe that I would be comparitively more tolerant of such an error of judgement. While it's important to handle false judgement, it's just as important to forgive false judgement. Of course, then there's the sticky matter of explaining the error judgement without being taken as unfair or belligerent, and even speculating the possibility that my judgement of their judgement could in fact be erroneous makes such situations a bit difficult. It's important not to attack the subject with the evidence. I wouldn't just say "Look, we have evidence, your wrong.", I would try to the best of my ability to relate with the person so that I can peacefully demonstrate a decision of some sort.

2) If a decision of yours, while technically a correct one, would knowingly be unpopular en masse, how would you present your decision?
 * I think I would first consider the perspective of those who would dislike the decision, and attempt to work from their point of view in demonstrating the rationale behind such a decision. A degree of care must be taken, as such an unpopular decision could really be seen as a breach of the consensus that Wikipedia operates on. Honestly I would be quite hesistant about making such a choice, but if the situation calls for it, then I would do so, but with the best explaination I could possibly give. Describing the motivations in terms of another point of view can help in getting across a reason.

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.


 * 1) WP:Neutral Point of View
 * 2) WP:Verifiability
 * 3) WP:No Original Research
 * 4) WP:Reliable Sources
 * 5) WP:Notability
 * 6) WP:What Wikipedia is not
 * 7) WP:Biographies of living persons
 * 8) WP:Copyrights

 The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake  20:04, 17 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.
 * Neither. I don't think either strict discipline or strict policy enforcing is ever nessescary in something as informally based as Wikipedia. There are many cases where janitors are unfairly deemed as power-hungry, and there are also many cases where janitors truly are being malignant with their buttons. Care should be taken and the facts should be checked as best as they can before such a decision is made, rather than applying a "rule of thumb" to the situation. Questionable blocks are, under most circumstances, good faith blocks, so I would definetely use an assume-good-faith approach to the entire matter. Most blocks have at least some rationale behind them, even if it is faulty judgement (so-called cool-down blocks are a good example of good-faith bad-judgement blocks). under most circumstances I would consider a block good-faith, however if the janitor is directly involved in the conflict in which the block is issued, then it would be wise to examine more carefully the motivations of the suspected bucketeer. Should, after a crapton of evaluation, the block be considered of obvious malicious intent (and thus bad for the wiki), then I don't believe they should be trusted with such buttons anymore. - The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake  21:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Anomo
1. Do you think there should be an age requirement for ArbCom? Anomo 12:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No. Age isn't even be a factor involved in deciding how good someone is for the job.

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)


 * Hmmm... if I were to just carelessly look at this question, I would answer with something like "I definetely don't support this", however I think there may be more to the situation than what meets the eye. Indeed your example block summary definetely isn't very... erm... descriptive of the case, so it might be best to check out the background info in such situations before giving out a verdict based on nondescript logs. The janitor in question could actually have a valid reason for his block, but was either too busy, too pissed, or too non-expressive that day to log it down properly. So while I definetely don't support bullying and elitist janitoring... I can't say for sure that such a hypothetical janitor was doing such (otherwise I'd be assuming bad faith without proper evidence).

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)
 * ...strange?

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)


 * That's a bit sticky. On one hand, you have people who did stupid stuff and feel ashamed of their actions in the past, and thus have a desire that the actions be, at least superficially, wiped off Wikipedia. On the other hand, you have people who, in a desperate attempt to cover themselves and their "rep", attempt to blank away entire chunks of talk pages, sometimes with no explanation. It can be tough maintaining any sort of status once you've made yourself look like an idiot, as I've seen before in the past (I won't give out any names... for confidentiality and all that). But should we just let anyone wash away the annals of time, wiping a smudge off of their otherwise spotless record, at will? I'm not entirely sure myself. I think if the person truly feels that they have changed, and don't wish to see the "old them" polluting the visible layer of Wikipedia, then we should give them at least some leeway for allowing them to remove their previous remarks. How we can measure such goodness of intent is still an unaswered mystery, but we can at least assume that the good intent is there (which is... after all... assuming good faith). I'd be okay with it as long as their doesn't seem to be any strong evidence of bad intent. At the very least, we can allow them to strike out their past statements and, in parentheticals, notify others of their change in stance. This is already common practice anyways, so I think it would work nicely in this context too.


 * If it's a matter of legality and/or privacy, we have oversight for that. :D

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)
 * ...unsure? (I could see it being cruel and unusual in some cases, and then justified in other cases... just depends)

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 think to a certain extent that many arbitrators, being janitors themselves, can empathize with them. Janitors clean up a lot of puke just to get bludgeoned with a lot of crap. Of course we also can't deny that the mythical power-hungry POV-pushing rogue janitor exists. So I think we need a little bit of everyone on the Arbcom, arbitrators who are janitors and thus know what it's like to be unfairly blamed, and good ol' regular contributors who know that those extra buttons can sometimes make one go insane. I'm not an admin (I actually wouldn't want to be one unless someone volunteered me), but I've delt with bajillions upon gajillions of the classic janitor-abuses-power cases, which has led me to develop my above, somewhat ambivalent, view.

Booyah. -- The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake  01:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Dfrg.msc
In one sentence, what will you bring to the Arbitration Committee? Dfrg.m s c 1. 2 . Editor Review 23:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake  02:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Voting in the elections
Hello, the ArbCom elections are coming up very soon and I was wondering if you would give your public assurance not to vote or comment on other candidates. I think this will help keep friction to a minimum. Imagine how ugly it would be if two people who vehemently publicly attacked and opposed each other both ended up sitting on the ArbCom together. I think, in the best interests of decorum, these kind of conflict of interest issues should be avoided. Do you agree? -- Cyde Weys 20:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. -- The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake  06:36, 3 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".


 * Since many ArbCom cases start off at MedCab, usally we can prevent such incidents from even happening by cooling people down. (Concise?) -- The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake  00:12, 9 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]]?
 * I don't much have an opinion of the election, and I honestly haven't looked up too much info on other candidates since I'm not really too worried about who gets the job. Campaign banners sound a little strange, and waaaay too political for my tastes. As for my "campaign".... what campaign? (Ugh... I hate politics) - The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake  00:12, 9 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.
 * I lost my cool one time with a vandal/troll guy. He was being quite a pest: ripping out chunks of my talk page, blatantly vandalizing pages while at the same time contributing information to them, and generally harassing anyone who decided to be affiliated with the matter. In reaction I was being pretty dickhead-ish, which is natural I suppose but still something that's out of character for me. Although it was tough, I did apologize to him for being a bit too belligerent in confronting him. -- The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake  00:12, 9 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.
 * See above. -- The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake  00:12, 9 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 wouldn't be too concerned as far as personal unease goes. Generally the best way to calm an angry mob is to do absolutely nothing to provoke them, which is quite a useful mediation tactic that I employ. It would be nigh impossible to quell all of these angry hoardes,  but I can at least remain unaffected by them and continue as I always do to make Wikipedia somewhat more calm. -- The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray  on Cake  00:12, 9 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.
 * My first edit, if I recall, was actually in the form of vandalism, back before I had a registered account (I'm sure that just lost any and all support votes I might get. Oh well). My first reason for embarking into the deep tangled mess of editing was boredom. I was having a boring day, and thought it would be neat to try something new. After realizing that I'm an absolutely suck-tastic editor, I found my niche as a mediator and dispute-resolver. Why am I here now? it seems interesting, and resolving conflicts is actually quite fun. I'm not terribly attached to Wikipedia, but I don't plan on leaving anytime soon. I consider detatchment of interest a positive quality to have as a mediator. -- The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake  00:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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