Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Rowlan

Questions

 * 1. What's so great about Wikipedia?
 * Honestly, it's the control factor. Having freedom to write and edit history and information is a powerful tool...just imagine how those guys over at the Encyclopædia Britannica feel!
 * 2. How do you feel about war?
 * It changes nations. Without war we wouldn't have much of a history, right?  What would America be without the Revolutionary war?  Where would Europe be without WWII?  Would Christianity have spread worldwide without a conquering Roman Empire?  I guess with war, it depends what side of the fence you're sitting on.  If you're the weaker nation being attacked war would suck.  On the other hand if your the all-powerful force with the big arsenal, you must feel pretty damn good about the whole thing.  Having said all this let's give peace a chance.
 * 3. Who was the best James Bond?
 * Ooooh, that's a toughy. Sean Connery, I'd have to say defined the role.  He is sort of the model for Bond.  I do have to say, though, that Roger Moore truely thinks that he is James Bond.  He and the character are sort of seamless.
 * 4. Do you think you'll win this election?
 * I would have to say, "No." Now this isn't a lack of confidence, but rather just admitting that no one is really aware of the tour de force that is me.
 * 5. Can men wear pink?
 * Yes, they can and should.
 * 6. What would you change about Wikipedia?
 * One word...Synergy.
 * 7. Do you know what you are running for?
 * If I answer, no, will you still like me?

Rowlan 19:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions from -Ril-
''Do you hold any strong political or religious opinions (e.g. concerning George Bush, Islam, or on which end you should break a boiled egg)? If so, would you recuse yourself from cases centred on these?'' How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"? Do you view all requests to re-address cases, particularly requests made by those most penalised, as being automatically without merit? No. Although I understand stereotyping, everyonce and a while an idiot can suprise youwith a moment of brilliance. ''In the case against Yuber, it was decided by the arbitration committee that it is the duty of arbitrators to investigate, and rule on the behaviour of not only one party involved, but all of them. Do you support this decision? [if current arbitrator] Does your visible behaviour on recent cases reflect this decision?'' Who names their kid "Yuber?" Anyway, I'm not entirely up to speed on this.
 * Yes, I do hold strong views. Concerning which end to break a boiled egg, I usually crack it on its side.  I would certainly not recuse myself.  It is my perogative to help promote my ideals and beliefs.
 * I am verry willing. I'm not a peer preasure sort of person.  I hold myself and my opinions in high esteem, so I will side with my conscience only.

Rowlan 22:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC) --Victim of signature fascism 15:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Some questions being asked of all the candidates by jguk
Q: How old are you and what do you do? (If student, please state what subjects you are studying.)

A: I'm 27 years old. I earned my BS in Communications in 2001 from Evangel University. I presently am a Outside sales and PR rep for a natural stone importer.

Q: 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?

A: I have no clue how many hours a month I'll need. The best way to look at it is out of those hours set aside are they quality hours? I would say I will put in quality hours.

Q: 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.

A: I have been involved in team sport my entire life. Yes, this seems sort of retarded when facing the "real world" but it is a very valid thing. Learning to work with people you otherwise cannot stand to acheive an end goal is a key element needed in sport and in collaboration later in life, whether it be business or here at Wikipedia. I may not like you, but I like what we collectively are working towards, therefore I can put aside personal differences to produce the desired outcome.

Q: Please list out what other Wikipedia usernames you have edited under.

A: None other than the one I list. Look at my user profile (User:Rowlan) to get an idea of what I have done.

Support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights?
Do you support User Bill of Rights? (SEWilco 05:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC))
 * Not so much. If it were a proper bill of rights, possibly, but certainly not that rubbish.

Rowlan 22:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions to many candidates by PurplePlatypus

 * 1) How do you view the role (and relative importance) of WP:Civility in the process of building a factually accurate encyclopedia? How do you view editors who are normally correct in article namespace, but who may be perceived as rude – including to longtime, popular editors and admins – on Talk pages and the like?
 * 2) I think being civil is ideal, but it typically isn't practiced. In an intellectual environment, I feel, you see as much trash talk as you do in sport...it just might be worded a bit better.  I think that anyone who has a higher position in a community should be held to a higher standard, but having said that it's easy to be rude to idiots, right?
 * 3) Do you have an academic background of any kind, and if so, in what field? How do you handle critiques from your peers and professors (assuming those aren’t one and the same), which may be sharply worded or otherwise skirt the edges of WP:Civility even if they are correct? Considering those professors who have recently had you as a student, what would they tell me if I asked them the same question about you?
 * 4) Yes, I'm educated per say. I have a BS in Communications.  I don't like critism, do you?  I especially do not like critism that is un-civil.  I think one can make themselves quite clear without being a knob.  My professors would probably say I'm a prick.
 * 5) What are your views on the proposed policy Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct? Whether you think it should be a formal policy or not, do you believe you would generally act in accordance with it? What aspects of it do you think should not be there, or to put it another way, are there any proposals there which you can think of good reasons to ignore on a regular basis? (Please date any replies to this question as the proposal may well change over time.)
 * 6) Please gather from the rest of my answers that I am not a big advocate of rules and think that you waste your time creating rules and not creating articles.

PurplePlatypus 07:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Rowlan 22:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions being asked by Titoxd to all candidates
Tito xd (?!? - help us) 06:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) How much of your Wikipedia time do you plan to spend on ArbCom business?
 * Very little...I'm just running to impress women.
 * 1) If you were elected and had to spend most of your time in ArbCom delibations, which projects would you consider to be the most negatively affected by your absence?
 * The articles that would be most negatively affected are the ones which I list on my member page.
 * 1) To what extent would those projects be affected?
 * It would be like the Apocalypse.

Rowlan 14:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality question and Censuring questions from -Ril-
(Being asked of all candidates)

Do you believe that regardless of Jimbo Wales' own views on the matter, the community should be able to strip arbitrators of their position under certain circumstances, and if so, what circumstances?

As a corollory:Do you believe, regardless of Jimbo Wales' view on the matter, that a large number of signatories (e.g. 150 requesting censure against 50 supporting the arbitrator) to an RFC against an arbitrator is enough that the arbitrator should be judged as having been rejected by the community in light of their actions, and consequently for them to be forcibly stripped of their post?

''wikipedia has a policy of NPOV. Excepting straw men, have you ever introduced a substantial opinion or fact that contradicts your own political or religious viewpoint into an article on a topic of which you have strong opinions, and if you have, how frequently do you do so compared to your other substatial edits to articles?''

--Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 02:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Recusal, Code of Conduct, Expansion
I am asking these questions of all candidates:

1. Do you pledge to abide by the proposed recusal guidelines at Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct?

2. Are there any parts of Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct that you do not agree with? If so, please describe in detail how you would improve them.

3. Will you please pledge to support expanding the number of seats on the Arbitration Committee? If not, how would you propose alleviating the present arbitration backlog?

4. Have you voted over at Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Proposed modifications to rules? If not, why not? If so, please summarize your votes.

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. &mdash;James S. 06:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Concerns over personal attack templates
User:Improv, who is also a candidate for the arbitration committee, has placed the following statement on Village pump (policy):


 * I am concerned about |recent templates surviving AfD that appear to contrast with established policy. In particular, I feel that these templates are Poisoning the well when it comes for how we treat our fellow wikipedians. There are circumstances where knowing too much about one's neighbours politicises how one deals with them. This is, to an extent, unavoidable in society, but wearing signs of hate as badges on our shoulders takes what is a small problem that we can usually deal with into the realm of being damaging to the community. Already, there have been signs of people refusing to help each other because they are on different ends of a political spectrum -- this seems likely to get worse if this trend continues. Some people cry that this is an attack on their first amendment rights (if they're American, anyhow), but that doesn't apply here because Wikipedia is not the U.S. government -- it is a community that has always self-regulated, and more importantly it is an encyclopedia with a goal of producing encyclopedic content. We have a tradition of respecting a certain amount of autonomy on userpages, but never absolute autonomy. We might imagine, for example, templates with little swastikas saying "this user hates jews". I am not saying that such a thing would be morally equivalent to this template against scientology, but rather that we should aim to minimise that aspect of ourselves, at least on Wikipedia, so we can make a better encyclopedia. The spirit of NPOV does not mean that we cannot have strong views and still be wikipedians, but rather that we should not wear signs of our views like badges, strive not to have our views be immediately obvious in what we edit and how we argue, and fully express ourselves in other places (Myspace? Personal webpage?) where it is more appropriate and less divisive.

I am inviting all candidates, including Improv, to expand on this theme on their questions pages. Do you agree that this is a cause for concern as we move into 2006? How do you see the role of the arbitration committee in interpreting the interpretation of Wikipedia policy in the light of this concern? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)