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

A note on questions being posed to all candidates
Please be aware that if you cut-and-paste one or more questions that you are asking of all candidates, I'll answer those portions that I believe are relevant to my candidacy and which are not already addressed either in my statement or in answers to prior questions. If you believe I've omitted something relevant, I'll be happy to address a more individualized query either here or on my talk page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from UninvitedCompany
I'll start out by answering the obvious question about why I resigned and what's changed.

In 2003, when Jdforrester and I first suggested the idea of having an Arbitration Committee, my interest was mainly in setting up the process and getting it to work. After the first few cases were underway, I resigned. My comments at the time of my departure were chosen in light of the fact that I did not want to undermine what was then a fragile, fledgling institution.

With a series of personnel and process changes, the arbcom has become a more effective institution that is able to work through a case far more quickly than was once the case. With the advent of the arbcom clerks, the arbs no longer have as tiresome a chore in front of them in maintaining the case pages. And I have seen firsthand how important an effective arbcom is to Wikipedia. Delayed cases and poorly chosen decisions have a divisive effect on the community. I think that arbcom work is valuable and am willing to invest the time.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

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) 19:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding recusal, I would recuse myself from any case where I did not think I would be able to be impartial. If I recuse, I'm not going to participate at all in a case. No comments, no advocacy, no lobbying. I would always be open to the advice of other arbs and former arbs regarding recusal and would actively seek it out if in doubt.

In general I have been very willing to disagree privately with individual arbs and the arbcom as a whole and doubt that will change regardless of whether or not I rejoin the committee. While I'm not interested in making protest votes, I'm willing to stand my ground and share my reasoning publicly for those issues where I feel strongly.

The arb workload does vary. How many hours? I don't know. I spend a few hours' time a month just following what's being done. Serious participation would involve more than that. And yes, I have the time.

Transparency for arbcom decisionmaking is a tough call. There have been calls for greater transparency since the arbcom's establishment. I believe that the magnitude and importance of internal and side conversations (e.g. among just two or three arbs) are less than is generally believed. Most of the salient turning points in the decisionmaking are incorporated into the decision pages on the wiki. Perhaps a different organization or writing style on the decisions would help.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Newyorkbrad
1. This is a question I'm posing to all candidates (you've referred to the issue somewhat in your comments above). What can be done to reduce the delays in the arbitration process? Newyorkbrad 19:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a tough area because there has to be consensus for the process changes. To some extent the need for transparency and public input is at odds with a fast process, and any process that's put in place has to work for a wide variety of cases. There have been proposals in the past for assigning smaller numbers of arbs to particular cases, proposals for greater use of summary judgements, and proposals for reducing the workload by empowering regular users to a greater degree to deal with clear cases on their own. Broadly speaking, I would support any of these (though probably not all of them at once), though the details matter a great deal and have to be worked out. There are tough cases involving serious allegations against long-standing contributors where no shortcuts should be taken. I don't think that we would have wanted the arbcom to rush the NSLE or Pedophilia user box cases. In cases like that, every arb should see the evidence for themselves and draw their own conclusions. Most cases are less far-reaching and may not have to be handled the same way.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:29, 1 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 03:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes; please see my more detailed reply to AnonEMouse, below. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Fys
I will be asking the same three questions to every candidate.
 * 1) '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?
 * 2) What role do you believe private discussions between the parties and members of the committee should play in determining the outcome of Arbitration cases?
 * 3) 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;. 22:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I note that you are presently under probation due to an arbcom remedy.

The answer to your first question would depend on the specifics of the case, such as whether there are other users affected, whether the behavior at issue affects the wider community, and so on. These are judgment calls. I have no comment on your particular situation.

Not sure what you're getting at about private discussions between the parties and members of the committee. Do you mean taking evidence in private? The arbcom trying to mediate disputes in private? Parties trying to lobby individual arbcom members? Parties trying to lobby the arbcom as a whole? Overall, there is a balance to maintain between transparency of process and maintaining an environment where people are willing to come forward and share their concerns freely without everything becoming a permanent part of the public record.

I generally dislike probation because I find that it rarely works. I have done some analysis of arbcom remedies, and in nearly all cases where probation is used, the party either quits editing, is banned, or ends up in front of the arbcom again. The table you yourself are maintaining at Probation bears this out. The exceptions are mild cases where there is a good editor who has lost their cool. I have been struck for some time with how the arbcom carefully metes out equitable remedies - 5 months probation for this user, 3 months for that user - when the usual outcome is that they all just quit the project. To the extent that probation helps at all, it does so because it is perhaps more palatable to those users who are concerned about the overuse of bans. As such, the mechanics of probation don't matter much. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions 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 03:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC))

Both permissions are highly sensitive. Either allows viewing of data which, if disclosed indiscriminately, could cause irrepairable real-world harm. As such, they should be granted only to individuals whose judgment is strong and in whose discretion we place unconditional trust. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Wizardry Dragon
I have a few questions I wish to ask:


 * You mention that you feel that the Arbitration Committee has been to lenient on trouble users.
 * How so?
 * Take a case you feel is a case in point. How would you have done things differently?
 * How would you deal with problem users in general, remembering to assume good faith?


 * You have been on the Arbitration Committee in the past.
 * How did you find your experience as an Arbitrator?
 * What would you consider the defining, or most positive moment, as an Arbitrator?
 * What would you consider the low point, or least positive moment, as an Arbitrator?
 * What would you have done differently?

Thanks for your time, and good luck with the coming elections. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 18:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

There are any number of cases where purported contributors engage in an ongoing pattern of civility violations, sock puppetry, revert warring, and POV editing while making few if any useful contributions. We tolerate way too much of that and I think the arbcom has in general looked for reasons to excuse such behavior -- the "other side" didn't follow the rules either, the proof isn't airtight, process wasn't followed quite right, the antisocial behavior of choice isn't specifically proscribed by policy, etc etc.

I don't believe that it would be wise to comment on a particular case. There are many examples.

Regarding problem users, I think that we've seen enough of these to be able to discern the difference between people who misunderstand our way of doing things and people who are here to disrupt or to use Wikipedia to further some agenda. I don't believe that the arbcom should be in the business of warning or putting on probation those users whose violations are deliberate or who have already received a legion of warnings. Problem users don't get better even with time, mediation, mentoring, and other expenditures of effort.

Regarding my prior experience as an arbiter, please remember that my involvement was very early, at a time when the arbcom was experimental and had only provisional support (or less) from many Wikipedians. I was involved for four or five months during which time we closed no more than four or five cases, if memory serves. I was among the initial members of the arbcom who were heavily involved in the creation of the arbcom and its procedures, and I am especially proud of that work. I believe we got the essentials right, and the ongoing presence and effectiveness of the arbcom testifies to that. It was a lot of work and there were plenty of mistakes that we were able to avoid. There isn't a lot that I would have done differently.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Part of why I asked about your previous experience is because it was at an early stage of ArbCom, as that interests me. This leads me to another couple questions:
 * What change(s) in ArbCom that has occurred with do you feel was the best? Why?
 * What do you feel you have to offer to the ArbCom in it's more established state?


 * Thanks for entertaining my incessant questioning. :) Cheers! -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 20:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Originally, the arbcom was conceived as a pan-project, pan-language organization. I think it's a good thing that its role is now limited to ENWP and that other projects have their own structures. Also, some of the original arbiters were opposed to essentially all bans and blocks. Things are more balanced now.

As for what I can offer the arbcom, I have three more years of Wikipedia experience since I started my involvment, working on articles, watching content and policy evolve, seeing the rise of commons and the sister projects, closing RFA requests, dealing with otrs issues, and so on. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for answering my questions. Cheers! -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 21:36, 2 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.

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?

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

One of the things I've said for a long time about Wikipedia is that the root of most policy disagreements is the huge variation in the nature of the editing experience depending on where a particular Wikipedian chooses to edit. Editors who work through quiet areas of, say, the biology articles are unlikely to encounter many problem users, let alone have the arbcom affect what they're doing. You can go about your editing day, improving and adding photographs to articles like tree frog without encountering anything more serious than light vandalism. Editors who follow WP:AN/I or who work on articles regarding current events, controversial figures or subjects, or Israel and Palestine tend to think that incessant edit wars and POV pushing are tearing the project apart. The truth is somewhere in between.

Once in a while, though, the arbcom is called out from the more or less shadowy area of dealing with POV pushers, socks, trolls, and the more egregious judgment failures of the admin corps, and something with potentially divisive reprecussions like the pedophilia user box fiasco comes up. No matter what side you're on (if any), it's clear that any mishandling of cases like that will have far-reaching effects. That is why I would encourage Wikipedians to vote for arbiters whose judgment they trust, and who they believe will be able to articulate their reasoning in a way that will be respected by the community. Those things are more important than platforms on particular issues, especially in light of the fact that at least some of the open slots are for three-year terms.

My current pet policy initiative is replacement of the sock puppet policy with something based on a "one person, one username" policy, with necessary exceptions. The present policy leads to a lot of frustration because Wikipedians who are trying to deal with bad edits by sock puppets have to demonstrate that each sock puppet is abusive, and in most cases try to identify whose sock puppet it is. I don't know that this is important enough that I would implement it by fiat, even if I could, but it's something I wish the community would adopt.

I think that the arbcom is (and has been since its inception) an institution of integrity and transparency, and it is accountable to the project insofar as its members are elected. The individual arbs who I know and the committee as a whole have always been very sensitive to fairness and parity. There are certain malcontents who will never be satisfied with the project and its policies. Wikipedians who are the subject of adverse arbcom remedies are understandably quick to criticize the arbcom's impartiality. And there are people new to the project who criticize what they don't understand. But I don't see much well-founded criticism of the arbcom or its members on the grounds of integrity or transparency.

It's difficult to reconcile the various issues affecting evenhandedness and parity. Many of our most important policies are in tension if not outright contradictory. WP:IAR is an example. Other examples include the tension between our opposition to censorship and our policy against personal attacks. Or the idea that administrators are held to a higher standard, vis a vis our belief that those who make valuable contributions should be shown a degree of leniency. It is incredibly hard to deal with tough cases and still be fair at all times to all people.

A great deal is made of the transparency of the arbcom decisionmaking process. I think I am on fairly safe ground in saying that the side discussions and private discussions are not nearly as important as is generally believed. Most of the real decisionmaking takes place on the wiki. As I've noted elsewhere on this page, I think the style and wording of some of the arbcom opinions end up making the arbcom appear unnecessarily obtuse. This may be contributing to the perception of opacity.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

4. There are previous controversies about the possibility of lobbying, partiality in clerks and its selection process that may compromise the integrity of the ArbCom process as a whole. (See clerk talk, Giano). What are your expectations of ArbCom clerks' and their influence (or lack thereof) in your own perspective?

I believe that, on the whole, the clerks have been a great asset to the arbcom and to the community as a whole. Most of the recent discussion of the clerk role has been related to User:Tony Sidaway, whose controversial nature long preceded his involvement as an arbcom clerk. I believe that clerks should be impartial, should quietly recuse themselves from matters where they are too involved to be impartial, and should refrain from making any statements that might be misinterpreted as being made on behalf of the arbcom. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:48, 7 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?

I don't think that I want to change the role that humor has in the project culture. It's part of what draws people here, part of the charm of the place. On the other hand, humor does not excuse personal attacks, revert wars, or disruption. Once upon a time, User:MyRedDice made this edit which I found hilariously funny. It was reverted within seconds (as well it should have been) but links to the diff floated around for a while and we all got a chuckle out of it. Some April 1 pranks exceed the limits; some do not. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from jd2718
What do we lose if you are not elected? (not looking for a rehash of your statement, but what do you bring to the table that would be missing without you?) Jd2718 00:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on who is elected instead. My long involvment with Wikipedia and my ongoing interest in its structure as a community are fairly unique, although they're not the most important things I would bring to the committee. The important things -- like good judgment, valuing fair process, familiarity with Wikipedia, and a commitment to the project and the Foundation -- are shared by many if not most of the candidates. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:55, 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) 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?
 * 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?
 * 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.
 * 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.)
 * 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?
 * 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) 17:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that the arbcom has or should have a policy-setting role. One of the things that many people don't realize about Wikipedia policy is that substantially all the settled areas of policy were decided long ago, based to a greater degree on leadership from Jimbo Wales and Larry Sanger than on consensus, and haven't changed significantly since then. Most of the purported policy changes are logical extensions of these, or codifications of things we've already done routinely for a long time, or compliance matters that we need for the WMF to operate the site in a lawful way.

The workshop comments you refer to with regard to the Giano decision reflect the opinions of individual arbiters and not the arbcom as a whole. The final decision reflects the facts: that RFA is consensus-based, and that the arbcom does not, in general, wish to review the decisions of the bureaucrats. In the unlikely event of clear abuse (like promotion of random people who had never gone through RFA), I am confident that the arbcom would be willing to review adminship promotions, and I would support that. I note that Ed Poor's bureaucratship was resigned, in part because of an arbcom proceeding. Reviewing the overall actions of a particular bureaucrat and determining whether they as a whole reflect the community's will is more within the remit of the arbcom than "overturning" a particular promotion.

I have stated many times that we should be more patient with strong contributors than we should with those who are not doing anything useful. That doesn't give license to strong contributors to act up or ignore the wishes of the community on an ongoing basis. What it means is that we are more willing to work with someone who makes 100 useful edits a day, one of which is unhelpful, than someone who makes 5 edits a day, all of which are unhelpful.

I don't think there's any sort of inherent tension that requires us to choose between administrators and content contributors. It's a false dichotomy in many ways. Both groups are needed and both are valuable. There is overlap in that there are many administrators who contribute large amounts of content. I think we should treat each group respectfully and avoid creating any sort of hierarchy.

I do not wish to comment on how I would vote on particular cases, past or future, so I will decline your suggestion to pick a case where I did not agree with the outcome. I have previously noted in general terms my feeling that remedies involving "probation" and "mentorship" are overused.

Fred has been among the hardest-working arbcom members for quite some time. If he did not write some of the decisions, they could well go unwritten. So, to the extent that there is a problem, it is that few of the current arbiters have the ability, time, and inclination to write such material. I think that the present structure and methodology of decisionmaking (the use of the worshop page, the division into sections, the arbs voting on each individual paragraph) is due for review. I would prefer to see more homogenous decisions, with concurring and minority opinions as necessary -- rather like we have at WP:RFC. The problem with the present system isn't that Fred writes most of the text. The problem is that it sometimes appears disjointed since each proposal must stand alone due to the voting on each one.

I like to write, and if elected plan to write a good deal.

When I was a past member of the arbcom, I was not an administrator, and didn't find that to be a problem. To the extent the content of deleted pages was a problem, people would email them to me. Then as now, the fact that there are qualified candidates for the arbcom that lack adminship speaks volumes about the shortcomings of the RFA process.

Regarding your bonus question, I think that we should be striving to make it easier for people to become admins. There is a difference between a difficult test or hurdle and a discerning one. Our goal at RFA should be discernment, not difficulty. We want to make it easy for the best candidates and difficult or impossible for the weak ones. RFA is unnecessarily difficult for good candidates. The arbcom elections are different in that there are a fixed number of openings, but the goal should still be discernment -- for the most qualified, most capable candidates, becoming an arbcom member should not be difficult at all. I think you missed the difficulty standard mainly because there are relatively few truly qualified people for the committee, who have an informed willingness to do the work. I note that many candidates are under the mistaken notion that this will be fun. The only thing that can carry people through a three-year rotation is an unwavering commitment to the goals of the project.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Ragesoss
In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?
 * Opinions vary because some people place considerably more faith in a rational world and the efficacy of the scientific method than others. Some people believe that there is a cause for every effect and put great stock in their own powers of observation and analysis.  Others consider that a small change in initial conditions may have unpredictable effects in a large dynamic system, or place their faith in beliefs that cannot be objectively proven to outsiders.  The appropriateness of these approaches at Wikipedia varies depending on context.  Science can explain a great deal, but it cannot explain everything.  As with much else, wisdom lies in knowing the limitations of each discipline. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:46, 10 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?

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 I've touched on the matter of serving out the term elsewhere. Regarding your second question, our NPOV policy has long held that we give appropriate coverage to all points of view rather than trying to pick winners and losers. To the extent that the arbcom becomes involved in content disputes at all, I would expect that it would adhere to NPOV. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Sugaar
I liked quite a lot your statement that reads: ''I believe that strong, good-faith contributors should continue to be given every opportunity to mend their ways. However, at present the arbcom is too lenient with troublemakers, especially those whose contributions are weak. This is unfair to those Wikipedians who have to deal with troublemakers, who are targeted by them, and who share their editing interests.''

I am pondering voting for you specifically for this item and also for your experience. Can you dwell more on this?

I am currently involved in a very difficult dispute in the White people article between what I see as ideologically motivated POV-pushers and wikilawyerists on one side, mostly new users, and a group of experienced and good-willed editors that, in my opinion, try to defend NPOV over anything, basically in the proper discussion page, on the other. It may end some day in the ArbCom (hope not). While I don't expect you to bring opinion in a case that has not yet gone beyond RFI (and inccidentally ANI), I'd like you to explain how would you focus a case like this in abstract. It seems it's already a difficult issue for involved administrators. I know it's a difficult question, so thanks in advance for your reply. --Sugaar 13:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to make a point of not commenting on the White people article situation but instead can comment a little more in the abstract.


 * There is a class of politicized general-interest articles that are extremely difficult to edit well. I continue to be amazed that the process works at all in some of these cases.  Usually when I visit one of these sorts of articles and try to intervene as a disinterested admin, one of the first questions I ask myself is, "who are these editors?"  And the extent and usefulness of their past contributions and the degree of reasonableness they exhibit in other discussions informs my actions.  If someone is making trouble, they have a history of being unreasonable, and their past contributions are of doubtful utility, there is little point in continuing to tolerate them.  I think the arbcom should give greater weight to this and give far less emphasis to reconstructing detailed timelines and seeking out those particularly damning edits indicative of bad faith or socks or wikilawyering.


 * As I've noted elsewhere, people who don't edit in these difficult articles don't usually realize how disruptive these editing patterns can be, and how frustrating it is for admins and other good editors who try to intervene. Anyone who tries to do good work in such articles is going to be accused of being a biased POV pusher, a rogue admin with no respect for process, an elitist who is undermining the goals of the project, an editor who gets their way because they have more friends, etc etc etc.  I would like to see the overall tone of discussion improve from these lows and would like to see a relatively more professional environment take hold.


 * Now, on the other hand, the arbcom has been fairly careful not to let strong contributions excuse ongoing bad behavior. I think that's good, and I wouldn't want to change it.


 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply to my difficult question. I really liked it: it was serious, concerned and balanced. --Sugaar 13:13, 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)


 * I would expect to scale back my participation in other areas but not to discontinue it. I try to make it a point to be responsive to reasonable requests, and don't think that would change.  I do think that it is important for people involved in WMF matters or administration or arbcom to stay engaged with the community and continue to edit.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:32, 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? Guy (Help!) 13:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I always reserve the right to be smarter tomorrow than I am today. The number of times I have been wrong about something is legion.  At Wikipedia it probably started when I made some of the perennial proposals at the village pump when I was a n00b.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:04, 17 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?

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

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


 * One of the things about the arbcom, for better or for worse, is that it is a political entity insofar as its members are elected and its remedies are enforced due to community support for them rather than by technical force. Anything that the arbcom does (and even to a certain extent its members and former members) should be informed by the community's likely reaction to it.  One of the reasons the arbcom appears opaque is its awareness of the presence of a reaction to everything it says.  In those cases where a decision might be unpopular, I would balance that against the importance of the principle at work and try do act in the best long-term interests of the project.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Ben Aveling
1. Which of the follow roles should arbcom members fulfil: judge, jury, executioner, detective, lawyer, psychoanalyst, teacher, leader, parole board, parole officer, weighing machine, opinion poll, weathervane, policeman, keeper of the vision, guardian of peace, visionary, psychic, nurse, other?

2. If deletion review is the high-court for afd, then what forum is arbcom the high-court of?

3. What role should irc play in arbcom discussions?

4. Why am I on wikipedia when it's such a fantastic day outside? .

Regards, Ben Aveling 22:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * One of my ongoing concerns about the arbcom as it has evolved is that it is loosely modeled on the U.S. and U.K. court system, which leads to questions such as your first. The problem with this as I see it is that the cumbersome safeguards necessary in a system capable of depriving people of liberty and property are out of place in an organization that can dish up no more draconian a penalty than depriving people of the ability to edit Wikipedia.  In that light, its role is to find facts and make sensible determinations in the best interest of the project.  Other than that, I generally see the arbcom scope as being relatively narrow and think that the arbcom should refrain from therapy and attempts to change things that can't be changed.


 * IRC is a means of discussion. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that arbcom members won't talk to each other, or to expect that they won't talk to other people.  Whether they carry on these discussions in person, or via email, telephone, IRC, or carrier pigeon is immaterial.


 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hypothetical from John Reid

 * Content dispute on Article X. Editor A ignites war with rude comment on User talk:B. New editor B sees this and reacts but A sneaky reverts himself before anybody else notices the instigation. Rude comments on Talk:X. Rude comments between Editors A and B on each other's talk. Admin C blocks A and B for a day. 12 hours later, Admin D sees the sneaky revert and unblocks B and, for good measure, extends A's block to 2 days. Admin C sees the unblock, doesn't understand/agree with the block sum, reblocks B and extends his block to match A's. He comments in good faith on User talk:D.


 * Admin D sees the reblock and reads the comment that reveals C's ignorance, reunblocks B, and leaves message on AN, explaining the sneaky revert. C reblocks again, leaves message on User talk:D complaining of 0WW violation. D replies on User talk:C, explains the sneaky revert, and unblocks both parties. Admin E (up to now uninvolved, stay with me here) comes to User talk:B to follow up on unrelated Article Y discussion; sees B complaining mightily but incoherently about being blocked. E reads through talk on X, A, and B and sees a lot of rudeness, blocks both editors for a day.


 * Editors M, N, P, and Q, friends or partisans of A and B, object loudly on talk to every turn of events; C blocks some of them, D blocks others. Meanwhile, C and D are trading insults on talk and Admin F finally steps in and blocks them for a week. Admin G unblocks everybody. Admin H discusses the situation offwiki with Admins J and K; H posts to AN with the stated intent to block all involved parties for 24 hours for violations of CIVIL and NPA. J and K endorse; H implements the blocks, which expire a day later. The case winds up at ArbCom.


 * I've already written my answer in detail, encrypted it, and uploaded it to a userpage. I'll give you a week to think about this case before revealing my solutions. 21:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's farfetched to think that such a rapid pattern of escalation could occur without other factors being involved (such as a long-simmering dispute over, say, userboxes). Nearly all admins behave respectfully towards other admins, something I would hope will continue.  Other than that, I'm going to stick to my position of not commenting on how I would handle particular past or future arbcom matters. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Another 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 believe that admins generally should be given fairly wide latitude in dealing with editors who are here to disrupt rather than contribute.  We have an excessive focus on rules, policy, and culpability for particular incidents given the nature of what we do.  The question that would come up in dealing with concerns about possible misuse of admin tools would be whether or not the admin was engaging in a pattern of ongoing misuse, not (except in particularly egregious cases) whether or not any single particular block was inappropriate. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Carcharoth
Very brief question. When did you become a bureaucrat and can you link to the relevant discussion pages if they exist? Thanks. I'm asking for the table being constructed here (the second table, or whichever is most up-to-date). The earliest date I could find was April 2005. See here. Carcharoth 05:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The question of the date has since been answered and the information added to the table. I have also found the discussion I asked for here. Carcharoth 17:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Further questions

 * You are listed as an active bureaucrat at Bureaucrats, but your logs show that your last bureaucratic action was on 18 April 2006. Are you  actually an inactive bureaucrat? If elected to the Arbitration Committee, do you intend to be more active as a bureaucrat, or would you remain inactive (if indeed you are)?
 * Would you foresee any conflict of interest in being a bureaucrat and also a member of the Arbitration Committee, particularly in light of recent cases that were related to bureaucrats promoting admins? Carcharoth 17:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I try to be involved where there is a backlog that I can address, and I've been dealing with "oversight" (revision hiding) requests, watching the requests for checkuser page, and helping with the OTRS queues for the last ~6 months largely to the exclusion of being involved at RFA or in changing usernames. At present I believe that RFA is in capable hands.  If a backlog were to develop there, I would help out.  Inevitably working for the arbcom would lead me to scale back my participation somewhat in other areas.


 * I don't believe there is a conflict between being on the committee and being a bureaucrat. Raul654 holds both positions now, and Jwrosenzweig held both positions in the past, I believe simultaneously.  I don't recall that it has ever become a problem.  Regarding the case you mention, I note that I chose to be wholly uninvolved as a bureaucrat -- I wasn't involved in any of the discussions on IRC or elsewhere -- since I was the one who had touched off the matter by advocating both the Arbcom and the community for the restoration of Carnildo's adminship.


 * Maybe another way of putting it is this: if you were aware of a potentially controversial bureaucrat decision that might involve discussion between bureaucrats, would you absent yourself from such discussions in case the matter ended up at arbitration, or would you always involve yourself regardless and then recuse yourself from any possible arbitration case if that arose? Carcharoth 00:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It would depend on the specific circumstances. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:50, 27 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


 * I don't think there should be an official age requirement for the committee. Voters can decide for themselves which candidates have a suitable level of maturity and judgment. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

2. I have read on several websites (they even gave links to block logs) of Wikipedia admins who do things like indefinitely blocking accounts who have not edited for months, there was no CheckUser anything, no reports, and the admin didn't give any reason, just put personal attacks as the block wreason (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)


 * I believe that block messages should be carefully chosen so that they make the purpose of and rationale for the block clear both to its target and the community. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

3. What is your view on the current policy often called "kicking them while they're down" of deleting the user and talk pages of people who are blocked? Anomo 12:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

4. What is your view on the practice on Wikipedia where a person blanks out text on talk pages because the text mentioned something wrong the person did or defeated them in an argument? The text blanked usually has no reason given. When there is a reason given, it's only a fake reason. In rare cases, the text is not blanked, but the entire talk page is archived including discussions hours old, blanking it out. Anomo 12:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I asked about several things, here but the part seems to be ignored by most I ask it to. I have seen where there is heated debate, someone who dislikes the debate or is losing (I have usually seen admins do this) they will archve the entire talk page of an article, including discussions hours old (sometimes minutes), just say archiving and the talk page is empty. Two examples come to mind, but if I name them I might risk offending the admins so I would rather not. Anomo 02:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Anomo, I believe that it depends on the circumstances which is why I didn't answer. These would include the nature of the content being blanked, whether it is part of an ongoing discussion, whether the discussion is relevant to anyone else, what kind of talk page is involved (user, article, project) and so on.  If someone is blanking useful comments on article talk pages in an effort to stifle discussion, obviously that's a problem.  If someone is blanking baseless complaints or insults from their user talk page, that probably isn't a problem.  I doubt if you will find any candidates in this election that feel otherwise.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

5. What is your view on the frequent practice of locking the talk page of someone who is banned to avoid communication with them? Anomo 12:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Though sometimes necessary, I believe that this practice is overused. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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 that the arbcom "sides" with anyone but rather evaluates each case on its merits. There are several cases where the arbcom has issued remedies to administrators that illustrate this.    The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from maclean
1. Since you resigned from Arbcomm, have you participated in any dispute resolution, for example 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?


 * Yes, I especially tend to show up at RFC when I think it will help. As I have noted before, I also participate at WP:OTRS which is itself a form of dispute resolution.

2. Should arbitrators discuss cases or remedies amongst themselves or approach all cases in dependently of one another?


 * I think that it is vital for arbitrators to discuss matters amongst themselves so that they may learn from each others' insights.

Question from Kylu
I'm just curious if you will continue your current role on the ombudsman commission for the Foundation, or if you feel that having both ArbCom and ombudsman positions might co-opt your neutrality in such cases? Thanks! ~Kylu (u|t)  05:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that ex-arbcom members are ideally suited for the role of ombudsperson, and in the event I rejoin the committee I would think it might be best to reassign the ombudsperson role to one of the arbcom members who is not seeking reelection. That said, the "ombudsperson" role is a WMF one and I would seek advice from the WMF (Brad and the board) on whether they wish to assign someone else or have me continue in the role.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:02, 30 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 23:42, 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 20:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I plan to make supporting votes only. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Zouavman Le Zouave
Hi, here are my questions ^^


 * 1) What are your musical tastes? Who are your favorite artists? What genres do you prefer? What sub-genres do you prefer?
 * 2) How much do you know about music? Do you play any instruments? Do you read music?
 * 3) What would be your musical philosophy? How do you describe good music in a general way?
 * 4) What are the things you wouldn't call music?
 * 5) What artists/genres/sub-genres do you despise the most?

Thank you in advance for answering these questions.

--Zouavman Le Zouave 21:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I have strong interests in several specific yet diverse types of music:
 * Any of the highly developed baroque music from about 1600-1750 (Giants like Bach, Buxtehude, and Pachelbel as well as lesser lights like the rest of the Bach family, Walther, Fischer, and Boehm).
 * Close vocal harmony of nearly all eras and styles ranging from cantatas to Peter, Paul and Mary and CSNY; also some somewhat less well known groups like the Indigo Girls and Bok, Trickett, and Muir
 * Piano music, string quartets, piano & string chamber ensembles, and orchestral music from the late classical era to the early 20th century.
 * Jazz, when performed well
 * Certain musically sophisticated R&B/folk/rock forms from the late 1960s and 1970s, such as The Band, Fairport Convention, Sandy Denny, Pink Floyd.
 * Occasionally, certain other simpler forms where I mainly enjoy the energy of the performance
 * I have at times enjoyed several alternative groups although I don't seek out such music much any more. I used to listen to some groups that have come to be known as gothic rock or post punk, such as The Cure and Bahaus.  For the most part I've switched to late Brahms music (the last couple of years before his death) and various sacred works written for lent and funerals, which are more deeply depressing than anything The Cure ever came up with.
 * 1) I have studied music mainly from a performance standpoint although I have a limited knowledge of theory and music history.  I play organ semiprofessionally and can also play piano, guitar, viola, and violin.  I can read music with each of these instruments except guitar where my reading skills are limited to chords.  I can also sight sing.
 * 2) I believe that music should be engaging in its melody, harmony, rhythm, dynamics, articulation, tone contrasts, emotional content, and (for vocal music) lyrical content.  Music that lacks any of these is unappealing to me, so I avoid Gregorian Chant (which lacks rhythm and harmony), some rock and roll forms (those which lack harmonic and dynamic complexity), and rap (most of which lacks melodic movement).
 * 3) I try to avoid defining music.  I prefer to define what I do and do not find appealing in music.  Most 20th century art music is dissonant and edgy and doesn't appeal to me.  Any of John Cage's later works that seek to define the boundaries of what music is are unappealing to me, whether or not one might construe them to be music.
 * 4) Opera, wind quintets, most metal, early music, most album oriented rock

Deletion of Flavor Flav
Per W. Marsh's comment, please explain your deletion of Flavor Flav "instantly without a helpful explanation just because someone complained about it." AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It was discussed at some length at the time on AN/I. I had been working to clear a backlog of hundreds of particularly odious complaints to WP:OTRS, the kind of complaints that are time-consuming and thankless to resolve.  The Flavor Fav article contained a libellous statement, and the article had no sources whatsoever.  I deleted the entire article as an expedient solution not realizing that the subject is fairly notable.  It was rapidly undeleted and the discussion at AN/I ensued.  I believe I acknowleged at the time that deleting it was a mistake, and I don't think any lasting harm was done.


 * In general, there are very few OTRS volunteers who are willing to work the difficult tickets. Most volunteers are comfortable sorting the mail, responding to complaints about vandalism, and dealing with attack pages.  We also have a separate group of people who are very good at dealing with copyright matters.  Without going back and counting through my contributions, I've probably dealt with several hundred libel complaints.  Some of these have created hard feelings even when I've handled them exactly right, and I'll be the first to admit that I've made some mistakes on others (and not just Flavor Fav).  I believe that the imporant thing is that I'm willing to explain what I'm doing and why and work with both the community and the article subject to get the article right.


 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:03, 5 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".

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]]?

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.

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.

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.

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.


 * If I'm not elected, I'll continue my commitment to the arbcom process just as I have been for some time. I believe that former arbcom members are uniquely suited to certain roles, such as helping out at WP:RFCU, working for the WMF as a "checkuser umbudsperson," and handling oversight requests.  I'll also work for fairness in the aftermath of cases, and bring necessary new cases -- both things that sitting committee members can't do because of the potential conflict of interest.


 * I'm pleased at the turnout of candidates and voters for the election. While there are some things I dislike about the election format, I'm glad that the election is being held and that the voting is being done in such a way that the results will be fairly clear.  I admire all the candidates for choosing to go through such a difficult and potentially demoralizing process.  There are some specific candidates who I think are especially well qualified, for whom I have voted.


 * I believe that Wikipedia is already so far outside charted territory that it is difficult to predict with any real clarity how the community will grow and what scalability problems it will ultimately face. I have a more detailed essay on this topic linked from my user page which may interest you.  Despite being written some time ago it is still relevant.  The strategy has been to make as few changes as possible and make them slowly.  The most significant changes we've seen in the last couple of years have been outward-facing rather than community-facing: WP:LIVING, WP:OTRS, the addition of full time paid legal counsel, and our much greater sensitivity to image copyrights.  I believe that one of the main areas of concern as the project continues to grow is adminship, and refer you to the WikiProject on adminship that I have started to draw attention to this.


 * I remain involved in Wikipedia because I believe that the end product - the free encyclopedia - is of great value to society. I see Wikipedia editing as volunteer work rather than a form of entertainment, though I do enjoy being here because I like to write and enjoy computer-mediated interactions.


 * Your questions are broad and I hope I've addressed the important points. You may also want to read through the earlier replies since some similar questions have been asked by others.  If there are specific portions you would like me to clarify, please say so.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions from LoveLight
Would you kindly evaluate and/or comment article 911. As a reader do you find that piece factual and accurate? As an editor do you find it satisfying (with regards to our fundamental Wiki policies and guidelines)? As future arbitrator how do you feel about status quo imposed on that and similar "ever burning" editorials? Lovelight 10:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Since I spent a couple of weeks at 1WTC a few months before 9/11, I doubt if I will ever be able to think neutrally and objectively about the attacks. While I don't know all their names, the faces of the dead and the survivors alike remain in my memory and surface whenever the subject comes up.  I remember idly chatting with employees of my client there.  One young woman told me the story of how she grew up in rural Italy, and came to the USA for opportunities she would not have had at home.  I remember talking to the recovering alcoholic who got out before the building collapsed and who lost his job a couple of months later due to the difficulty the business had restarting after the attacks.  I remember the waitress at the cheap Japanese restaurant on the second floor.  I remember the manager who had one of those Galileo thermometers on his desk; when I asked him how well it worked he replied that he had never had an elephant to test it on.  Real, living people, with families and dreams and loves and aspirations and all the other things that come with being human.  The WTC was a city within a city, and there were people from all over the world who lived out a considerable part of their lives there.  And the whole place and thousands of its people were destroyed.


 * So, I don't read the article or edit it, since if I did I would probably find it to be a whitewashed coverup for the reality of dead, burnt bodies of real people, firemen and rescue workers who gave their lives, crushed or immobilized or burned or asphyxiated by the burning jet fuel, SSNs written on their arms in magic marker, so that they could get as many people out as they could. I don't believe that my views on this matter are necessarily useful to Wikipedia, and so I stay away.


 * If there is another article you would like to choose as an example, I may be able to provide an answer more relevant to the arbcom elections.


 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll never, ever forgive to those who carried such unthinkable act. It fuels me you know... all those voices… There is no need to go further, you have my empathy as well as support. Thank You for your time… Lovelight 20:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Question from Zoe
What is your feeling concerning the potential vote to desysop User:MONGO? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would not want to comment on the Seabhcan matter (or any other) in particular. I have not reviewed the facts of that case in detail and I have not drawn any conclusions as to whether or to what extent MONGO has misused the admin tools.  In general terms, however, I will note that I believe that the arbcom should deal with minor but significant misuses of admin tools by issuing brief (on the order of weeks) bans.  This would allow a cooling off period, provide a basis for escalating sanctions if the problems continue, and avoid the drama that desysoppinng/resysopping inevitably generate.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)