1. 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? – Ch acor 11:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   I actually like it, especially its' usage in the recent Giano case. If people give up their sysop powers in a situation of conflict, they have therefore acknowledged they possibly acted inappropriately, and should have to go back through RfA just like if recall was implemented (not saying it should, just a parallel). In my opinion, RfA would give the best opportunity to determine community concensus on whether an admin deserves their tools back, or they can't be trusted - and most of the opinions would be based around the conflict in which they gave them up in the first place. 12:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

1. I will be asking the same three questions to every candidate. 'Arbitration' is a process of dispute resolution. If the parties to an arbitration, after it has gone to the committee, manage to resolve the dispute or any part of it themselves, would you continue the case or that part of it? If so, why, and if not, why not? Fys. “ Ta fys aym”. 12:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   Generally, I think that the the "Principles" and "Findings of fact" should still be completed, for transparency and closure. However, if all parties reach an amicable solution which is universally agreed upon by all parties, as well as the ArbCom being satisfied that the dispute has indeed been resolved, I believe the "Remedies" section could be omitted; or the remedies section could be used only to formalise some of the things that came about by the resolution by the parties ie. all agree to standard revert parole on [article] etc. - common sense works wonders for even the most complicated system. 12:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

2. What role do you believe private discussions between the parties should play in determining the outcome of Arbitration cases? Fys. “ Ta fys aym”. 12:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   Civil conversation and discussion with a possible resolution without the ArbCom's involvement, or semi-involvement as demonstrated in Q2, should be promoted at all times. Incivil comments which fuel the fire and don't have any intention nor chance to help resolve the conflict should be discouraged. See Q2 above for my reasons for promoting discussion. 12:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

3. Take a look at Wikipedia:Probation. Under what circumstances should users who have not had any restrictions on their editing imposed, be removed from probation? Fys. “ Ta fys aym”. 12:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   Key word: consensus. When there is concensus, both within the general editing group as well as Admins/ArbCom that a user has reformed, demonstrated the ability to keep a level head (especially with similar articles to that they are prohibited from editing - eg. FA Premier League when prohibited from editing the Bundesliga page etc.), and is willing to abide by all Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and general ethics, I feel that we should allow it. We are here to write an encyclopaedia - unless there is a strong reason not to allow it, the ability for a user to improve a page should be paramount. 12:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

1. This is a standard question I'll be asking all candidates. How can you be bored by a fascinating subject like legal studies? What do you believe can be done to reduce delays in the arbitration process? Newyorkbrad 16:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   Ha :) It's more that I already know all the stuff we're learning in Legal Studies which makes it boring, not the actual content. Onto the non-struck question, I believe there is a need to slightly streamline the RFAr process. No specific ideas quite yet on how, though. Also, more active AC members won't hurt :) 08:03, 2 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? If so, do you have any writing experience that would be relevant to this activity? Newyorkbrad 03:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   I do expect to do some of this. Aside from my experience with drafting stuff like this in legal stuides, I also read a lot of ArbCom cases (as noted in my statement), and hence have a lot of experience in understanding how they are normally written. With the exception of my spelling, which suddenly can be off-colour at random intervals lately - I have no idea why it's occuring, either - my English is generally very good, as demonstrated in my article writing. 03:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

1. I'm not sure if this is part of your job description, but what would you do to improve the enforcement of ArbCom decisions? What is your take on an ArbCom decision being read or not read as a precedent for similar issues that may arise? Rama's arrow 18:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   Precedent is good, because it creates a sense of justice and equality. That's the main idea behind the Findings of Fact section, I believe - to create precedents on issues. With the enforcement, I would be able to do very little, given my statement below regarding not running for adminship during my term if elected. 08:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

1. What prior experiences have you had with Arbitration in the past?-- Konst.able ^Talk 23:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   I am an avid reader of RFAr cases, and understand how it works more than most after reading the AC Clerk handbook (which is very detailed on some aspects of how AC works, even if it is aimed at clerks and not aspiring AC members) and the knowledge from reading. My editing is yet to actually result in an RFAr, which is probably a good thing :) 08:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

2. What is your impression on the general level of resolutions that is currently being produced through Arbitration? (i.e. too lenient, too strict, not working?)-- Konst.able ^Talk 23:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   It varies from case-to-case. My main problem is a lack of consistancy between some cases; some actions are punished with x, and a similar exhibit is punished with 2x. For ArbCom to be universally respected, this needs to be resolved. On the whole, they seem to get it pretty close to right on most occasions, for which they deserve a big pat-on-the-back for :) 08:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

3. Could you sum up the reasons why you think you failed your RfA a couple of months ago and whether any of those reasons are relavent to you becoming an arbitrator.-- Konst.able ^Talk 23:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   Well, I know the reason why I failed my RfA a couple of months ago - I displayed a lack of tact and/or straight thinking. Since, I have greatly improved my ability to communicate, and my ability to remain cool when things get hot. This is demonstrated by the fact that I haven't been in any major conflicts since - I have managed to avert any major issues by rationally discussing it with the other user. As such, I believe my failed RfA has abolsutely no reflection on my abilities to become an AC member - "an error only becomes a mistake once you refuse to correct it". I feel that, given my willingness and success in remaining cool and having constructive discussions when attempting to resolving disputes, it is on the most part negligable. 08:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

1. What sort of arbitration activities have you been involved in, in the past? Have you been involved in any ArbCom cases previously? Do you have any experience in settling disputes? --May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 05:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   Please see my response to the questions starting with "What prior experiences have you had..." and "Could you sum up the reasons why you think" (both above) for my answer. In addition, I have mediated one case as a MEDCAB member, and often deal with CAT:RFU as well as helping calm down fired-up editors at WP:AN/I. 08:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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

1. 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?

   Amazingly, no, I don't hold any really strong political or religious opinions - the fact that I believe that CCMFC are the best team in the A-League I doubt qualifies as a "really strong political or religious opinion" :). If it was a problem, however, I'd recuse in an instant - I explained my belief on recusal in a question above. 08:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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

   Probably recusal. It makes the most sense, after all - ArbCom decisions shouldn't be comprimised by strong involvement in the initial dispute - thats a COI of sorts. 07:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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

   Pretty strong. As noted in my initial statement, there has been recent criticism of the AC, and one major sore point has been the fact that there is too much nodding and not enough real discussion by the AC regarding what comes out of the dispute. Being bold in general tasks, I'm sure that this would flow through to my ArbCom duties if I am elected. 07:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

4. 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?

   Frankly, I have no idea. But it doesn't matter - I spend far more time than most users on Wikipedia. My high edit count and participation in Wikipedia at all times of the day suggest this. 07:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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

   Substantiated criticism, which is well expressed, is always handy, and is not in violation of AGF. Those who are acting like up-starts just because they didn't agree with the AC's decision, with no real valid reason to complain other than being a right pain in the neck, are in violation of AGF. 07:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

6. 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?

   In this context, my involvement with closing AfD's and my co-leadership at Wikiproject Football in Australia are good examples. I've also written a Featured List, as well as two Good Articles. For a perfect example of a great NPOV collaboration into fixing a troublesome article, see 2006 FIFA World Cup controversies, which I contributed heavily to (and is now a GA). 07:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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

   ArbCom decisions should be fully transparent, unless there is extreme reason not to publish some evidence etc. This requires a common sense judgement on a case-by-case basis. However, these actions to "censor" some information for whatever reason should be fully explained (eg. "It contained personal information" etc.). 07:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

8. Do you think that administrators should be treated differently to non-administrators in ArbCom decisions? Brian | (Talk) 19:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   No, not in general behaviour. Of course things need to be slightly different when dealing with blocks/deletes/protects and the outcome of these specific actions, however general stuff like NPA and civility require an even slate. This is one of the reasons I feel there should be at least one non-admin member in the AC. If I was elected, I would not run for adminship during my term. This, I promise on my ability to edit Wikipedia. 07:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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 03:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)) reply

   I personally feel that CU requires slightly more prowess and responsibility than OS. CU requires discretion when identifying if multiple people are using the IP, and their errors in judgement on this could be catastrophic. Its usage needs to be responsible per Wikipedia's privacy policy. OS is more janitorial - being on hand to deal with requests to cover up personal info etc. ASAP. However, I still feel the people who hold OS should be extremely responsible and trustworthy, given the fact that you could potentially cover up incriminating details by yourself or others. Discretion in both positions is required, as is responsibility and judgement, however CU also requires a superior knowledge of IP's and how the function, and the ability to determine if there is sufficient evidence to say that there is two+ or just one editor from a specific IP. 07:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Hi Daniel. I found your non-admin platform interesting and I was wondering if you could expand on it. Does this platform mean that you will not run for adminship before the election or during the ArbCom term (if elected). Also, have you discussed with any current or past ArbCom members whether they feel being a non-admin would be a barrier? One example that comes to mind is not being able to independently review deleted edits. Thanks Daniel, Sarah Ewart ( Talk) 13:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   Hey Sarah :) In response to your query about my adminship, you are completely correct - I will not run for adminship before the election or during the ArbCom term, if elected. I have, since you rose this question, discussed the merits of non-admins in the AC with a current ArbCom member. He said that, although the only minor difficulty would be with deleted edits (nice pick-up, that one!), he personally felt that there was no specific need for one in the AC. He did also say, however, that it wouldn't hurt, and one's ability to be a good ArbCom member shouldn't be directly reflective to their current technical status on Wikipedia. 11:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks for your reply, Daniel. I think you've got a very interesting platform and I wish you all the best for the election. Cheers mate, Sarah Ewart ( Talk) 09:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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.

   Well, although I don't feel strongly about it, the recent Giano incident is a perfect example of "why editors must understand the importance of the ArbCom elections and making wise, informed decisions when they vote". There is one way to not have any complaints about the AC, and that is to vote in those who will do a good job. That is why this election is so critical, just like electing the government in your country - it is up to you to decide who will do a good job, because you have to put up with them for x period of time, and suffer any poor decisions they make. 11:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

   1a. What's your take on those who have seriously gone back on their word in their pursuit (or desire) of any important role (or power)? Should they resign? Should they be given a second chance?

   By the wording of the question - "seriously gone back on their word" - I will assume we are talking about a very serious promise which has been broken - maybe to the degree of my promise with relation to this nomination (see above question by Sarah). In this case, yes, I believe they should resign. They blatantly misled the voting public (note that if the incident isn't "blatant", this view must be taken with discretion), and hence they are not fufilling their promised role. If the breaking of the promise comes about by an honest mistake with no intent to break the promise, AGF is in play. But if it's blatant, and intentional, then yes, they should resign. 02:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

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?

   Wikipedia:Daniel is hereby King of all lands, including but not limited to, the Solar System (including all natural satellites), and shall be given eternal life. I would make reliable sources official policy. With all the WP:BIO concerns floating about, and with WP:V and WP:OR being an official policy, RS would fit in nicely, and make Wikipedia more reputable. Being an encyclopaedia and all that, this will only improve the quality of the Wiki. 11:23, 3 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?

   Being a clerk for RFCU, and having read the privacy policy far too many times to count, I would be more than happy to take aboard the responsibility of helping Mack and Dmc at WP:RFCU. OS is something I have limited knowledge regarding, however it doesn't seem as detailed in usage nor discretion as CU. To put simply: CU, yes; OS, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it :) 11:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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

   Integrity: important; transparency: slightly more important; accountability: paramount. Transparency feeds to integrity, which in turn feeds to accountability. Considering the occasionally volatile nature of the AC's duties, transparency, or a lack thereof, only creates dissent and confusion; this leads to a lack of integrity, which is harmful for everyone - considering the binding nature of the AC's decisions, a major divide over lack of integrity of the third-highest body on Wikipedia (WMF and Jimbo being above it) could create massive problems and disruption to Wikipedia. Being accountable for your actions is paramount on Wikipedia; given the AC's heightened level of decision-making and the implications it brings, this means it must be held to a higher level of accountability than anyone else on Wikipedia. 11:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

5. Are "honourable" long-standing contributions and having the role of being sysop mitigating factors when dealing with chronic cases of incivility and other forms of policy violations?

   Although everyone should be on a level playing field, there is, in my opinion, a very small leeway for experienced contributors. Given that they have had no problems (hypothetically) in all their time at Wikipedia, the ArbCom can probably let them off slightly more easy as it might have been an out-of-character act; if it's a SPA, however, who immediately jumps into making PA's and being incivil, this is very difficult to assume, and hence they get treated more harshly. It's a warped system of natural justice, really :) 22:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

6. 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?

   If it doesn't interrupt the encyclopaedia, then I'm fine with it. Seriously, if Wikipedia didn't have some humour/variation to it, it would not be as all-encompassing as it is today. We aren't robots who write articles, and a little humour always brightens up my day. It's when humour starts disrupting with mainspace especially, but also generally building the Wiki, that we have to take note and evaluate. Daniel 22:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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, Wikipedia: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?

   Firstly, sorry for the delay - exams and such :) Now, onto the question... no, it does not. ArbCom is a way of enforcing policies and guidelines, not (possibly-)unilaterally making them. As noted the Non-Notability case, a policy/guideline is formed by concensus, and 15 people sitting on the ArbCom board is not concensus. So, simple answer, no. Daniel 01:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

2. Similarly, a recently closed Arbcom case Wikipedia: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?

   Firstly, no comment on whether there was concensus etc. in the RfA in question. To answer your question: yes, they should have this power. ArbCom hasbeen set up to iron out disputes that normal Wikipedia channels cannot. This is a prime example. Again, I'm not saying that the 'crats did/didn't make the right call in this RfA, but ArbCom should have the power to judge on a 'crat decisions purely because no-one else can. This is the purpose of the ArbCom's establishment in the first place - need for a body who can decide on otherwise-indeterminable cases. However, saying this, the ArbCom should be extremely careful in overturning decisions made by 'crats, for they are becoming an isolated body of Wikipedia. 01:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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?

   Of course general service should be taken into account. However, it does not mean a "Get out of jail free" card for good contributors. No matter what, no matter if you're the proverbial king, queen, prince etc. of the Wiki, you still must follow NPA, CIVIL, as well as article guidelines and policy like V and MOS. No exceptions. See below question for more. 01:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano, so you can imagine it may come up again.

   Aha, I was waiting for this one :) In my honest opinion, neither is worth more than the other. Although we are here to write an encyclopaedia, this wouldn't be possible without administrators attempting to ensure everything runs smoothly. Although such proposals as WP:BULL have some (limited) merit, we mustn't lose the focus that everyone here should be considered to be attempting to improve the encyclopaedia, and hence with the sorts of disputes which end up at ArbCom (civility, NPA, to a high degree), everyone should be treated on the same article regardless of their areas of contribution to improving Wikipedia. 01:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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.)

   Let me state now that I will not be a rubber stamp if elected, and I will stand up for what I feel is right. On to the question, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano#Giano II 2 is what I'm going to nitpick about. Speaking generally, and in complete agreement with Brion (dev) on this, logs are records. If we do this, we are opening up the door of non-transparency, non-accountability and that's one path I don't want to go. Although I can understand Giano's anguish over the whole incident, logs are a permanent record of going-ons, which should not be tampered with for extremely good reason for matters of transparency and accountability. 01:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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?

   I write many proposals now, as an uninvolved party. See the current ScienceApologist, Konstable and (to a lesser extent) Hkelkar cases. Most of my policies recieve complements and/or comments of support from Fred, and I plan on keeping this trend up if I become an ArbCom member. Even if I don't, I will still keep doing it, however probably not to the extent of that if I was an ArbCom member. 01:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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?

   Out on this one - I'm a non-admin. 01:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Would you elaborate on your statement, However, lately, I've been seeing some views presented, by experienced- and new- users alike, that the Arbitration Committee is becoming more and more segregated from the "normal community" in its views and decisions - by which, I refer to the general editors. I'm interested in an example or two of what you mean and what you think might possibly be behind this trend. Thanks. -- MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   Well, I know of a number of users who dissented the decision of the AC case involving Giano, most in the opinion that there wasn't harsh enough penalties for some other involved parties (of course, KM and TS lost their +sysop (and +os +cu I believe in KM's case), however the general feeling was that these two wouldn't have lost it, had they not resigned. Although it cannot be confirmed, it still highlighted my point - that some users, particularily sysops, maybe don't get all they deserve at AC, possibly because there is a respect level that raises them above certain policies. Although this isn't 100% my view (I sort-of agree with the principle, however), I think a non-admin should be enlisted to provide a different POV on certain matters. 23:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

1. How many of your 10,000+ edits were made by (semi-)bots like AWB, VandalProof, and the like? [ælfəks] 07:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   I have never used AWB. According to my VP counter, I have used it for just over 500 reverts, and 400 messages to talk pages. Other than that, it's been all me, the person :) 08:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

2. How do we know that we can trust you (apart from "I'll hunt you down if you break that trust")? [ælfəks] 07:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   My devotion to this project I feel is enough of an indication of the trust. Wikipedia is my hobby, along with socialising and sporting commitements, and breaking the communities' trust on Wiki would be like lying to my friends - something I will never do. As stated in Q2, I'm an umpire, and to even be selected on the panel I am requires credibility, honesty and accountability that most people my age don't have. I am the same on Wikipedia. 08:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Do you have any dispute resolution experience in any of the following areas: Wikipedia:Mediation Committee, Wikipedia:Third opinion, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, or Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates? In an answer above you stated that you have experience with Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal, please expand on this dispute resolution experience and how it will benefit you. If not successful with the Arbitration Committee, will you seek a position with the Mediation Committee? · maclean 06:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   The first point was answered by the link you so helpfully gave :) (see a link to my mediation, which was a yucky situation in every sense of the word, here) The second point, about applying for the MC, is something I will certainly think about - I think that my ability to resolve disputes is better suited to the ArbCom level, however they would still benefit the MC if I joined, in my honest opinion. Currently, two MC members have expressed their interest at me joining the MedCom. 23:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

1. 2. Are you 13? Are you 18?

   Sixteen - close :) 04:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Should ArbCom arbitrate policy disputes or any other matter outside user conduct issues? Why or why not?

   No, because it isn't the Arbitration Committee's job to represent/create concensus on policy and or content disputes. Those things are for the community to decide, not fifteen members. 04:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

1. 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. 08:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I would vote "reject", giving my opinion to the parties to partake in RFC/Mediation, or else discuss it between themselves first. As stipulated by the ArbCom policy, prior dispute resolution is required in most cases. Saying that, a protection on article X appears to be required, and although I could not do that, I'd state my expressed support for such an action until this dispute can be resolved (hopefully without the ArbCom). Admins C and D especially would probably require a UC RFC, given their actions. However, as stipulated above, these two actions (which I would consider the "worst" of the lot) would be better suited to RFC first. If RFC broke down, I'd be happy to accept then. 00:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

   Although I could say "ArbCom answers conduct disputes only, not content", my personal opinion is that NPOV means giving all important viewpoints appropriate coverage, whilst SPOV is written from a perspective of science-based knowledge only. The latter is good; the second, not so. We are an encyclopaedia, and therefore we should be factual when it comes to anything, and science has a good grounding in fact. However, there are also times when we should discuss things from the Economic, Social, Political as well as Scientific POV. A good balance of the four makes a good article. 12:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Members of the current Arbcom were recently openly discussing people involved in an Arbcom case on the IRC Admin's channel. What are your views on that, and on Arbcom confidentiality. Giano 17:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   Hey Giano :) The only time that ArbCom confidentially should be used is when reviewing potentially libellious deleted edits etc., or else other information which has been "Sealed to WMF" (so to speak). However, in this case, it shouldn't be the #admins channel, but rather a dedicated channel to discuss purely these things. See #Questions from Brian New Zealand for my views on ArbCom transparency and confidentiality. 23:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

2. So if elected what will you do to discourage this gossiping on IRC by Arbcom memebers? Giano 23:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   I know that I will not discuss the merits of any current arbitration case that is in either the Evidence or Voting stage over IRC, unless it is a special case as listed above. I will also encourage others to do the same, however I would have no control over what other members do. 23:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

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?

   I really cant envisage myself resigning, unless something dramatic happened in my life that required it (like moving to a place that doesn't have internet, or something). The possibility of me resigning from "negative feelings from others arising as a result of a decision [I] made" would be near enough to 0 - as stated above, I'm an AFL umpire, which lends itself to being verbally (and occasionally physically) abused. I'm use to this negativity.

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 currently have no specific field of study (unless you count Law), and being only a student means this really isn't a huge issue. However, hypothetically, depending on my knowledge, I may answer any questions from my fellow AC members that they have, to the best of my ability, about the field in question. 22:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

1. 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.

   Yes, I will continue active editing, for certain - I doubt I will lose the will to contribute to articles for a long time, no matter what my other roles. I will be available to answer questions, provided it doesn't comprimise the repuation of the Arbitration Committee, or it isn't a judgement question on a case currently pending. As stipulated in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano, all members of the AC must "maintain decorum appropriate for an Arbitrator". 04:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

1. 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!) 14:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   On Essjay's talk page, only 24-hours-or-so ago. I misinterpreted my role as a clerk, as well as acting like an idiot and bringing RFCU into a state of disrepute with my actions. I said: "By the way, my apologies for bring RFCU into a state of disrepute (however minor, even so) - I acknowledge my behaviour as a clerk probably wasn't up-to-scratch, and for this I'm sorry". 20:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

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?

   Please elaborate - I can't answer until I know who made the error in judgement (ie. the parties, the Arbitration Committee, the administrator group as a whole, the community as a whole etc.). 04:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

   You, personally, but it can be extended to ArbCom or any other subset of WP. Official action or simple editing. It doesn't really matter. 04:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

   OK, well, the best thing is to recant, apologise, and assume that people will acknowledge it an "error", and move on. See my response to JzG above for examples of my ability to do this.

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

   With concise, detailed and thoughful presentation, acknowledging all POV's and then summarising why I made the decision, how I made the decision and, what basis I made the decision on. Remember, the encyclopaedia comes first, so all decisions must benefit it, as opposed to the egos of some editors who believe they are above the writing of the encyclopaedia. 04:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

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

   WP:C, WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:NOTE. The only reason the first two are where they are is for the legal reasons, and any issues with those two take immediate precedence over anything else. Although RS is at the bottom, I feel it could be tied in with V; the same for NOTE and NOT (loosely). 04:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

1. 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.

   I would use common sense to evaluate the level of disruption and other indesirable effects it had on the community, and go from there. Although sysops do require some protection at ArbCom (it is a tough job), that does not mean they should have a get-out-of-jail-free card. Just to repeat: like everything else on Wikipedia, judgement and common sense are vital in deciding which stance you should take, keeping in mind that ArbCom's goal is to further enhance the Wiki. Daniel 22:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Do you think there should be an age requirement for ArbCom? Anomo 11:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   No. Judge each candidate on their merits. 00:34, 28 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 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 [1]. 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 11:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   Although I don't, on the face of it, see any reason to do such a thing, maybe there was a reason that hasn't been brought to light. In the current state of things, I oppose that, but I withdraw my opinion until clarification is offered by the blocking admin. 00:34, 28 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 11:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   Deleting the user pages of people who are indeffed (without being a sockpuppet) is perfectly fine, and there's even a category for it ( Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages or similar). User talk pages should always remain, unless there is stuff which should be fired into oblivion, to remain transparent and to allow non-admins to see why a user was blocked. Kicking them while they're down is something which should be discouraged - as the ArbCom recently pointed out, Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges. 00:34, 28 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 11:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   I personally don't like it, but I recognise that currently they are entitled to doing this on their user talk pages. On article talk pages, it is disruptive, and users should be blocked for repeat offences. 00:34, 28 November 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 11:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   Only if {{ unblock}} abuse has been established, it is being used for blatant trolling whilst blocked, or they are under an ArbCom ban which is non-negotiable. Other than that, I disagree with it. 00:34, 28 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 11:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   I'll get back to you on this one. This forms the basis for my candidacy, so I want to make sure I cover everything I want to. 00:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

   I later realized I phrased that one incorrectly. So I rephrased it as "6. Why is it that in the past when in a conflict in ArbCom between non-admins and administrators that ArbCom has usually sided with the admins?" Anomo 18:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

7. Do you think someone who wishes their biography removed, like Daniel Brandt, should be allowed it if they wish? Anomo 11:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   No. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and hence we include material which is suitable. In the example of Brandt, he is a public figure, and has a number of RS about him, so there is no choice. In the example of borderline-notable people, the subjects' interest, if expressed, should be taken into consideration, but not be the be-all-and-end-all. Please note that this answer is independant to the BLP clause, and anything with BLP concerns is not applicable to this answer. That's another kettle of fish... 00:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

1. There seems to be some curiosity regarding the entry in your block log. Would you care to explain the circumstances surrounding that? Luna Santin 01:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   Ah yes. I recently answered a very similar question on the general talk page for the Candidate Statements of this election. Rather than rewrite it, here's a direct link to it: link. If you (or anyone else) requires further clarification on this statement, post here and I'll happily respond. Cheers :) 01:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

1. In one sentence, what will you bring to the Arbitration Committee? Dfrg.m s c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 23:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

   I would bring a different perspective, a different viewpoint, on issues, and this would allow for more ideas to float around regarding a case and how it could be best dealt with, as well as long sentences :) Daniel 23:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

1. 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. -- Cyde Weys 20:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC) reply

   Well, I wasn't planning on voting anyways, so you have my assurance that I won't vote if I'm still a candidate. The only thing I will say, however, is if I decide to withdraw, I will then vote. 21:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

   Actually, I'm going to amend that. I understand that grievances will only occur if a candidate voted "oppose" for another. Hence, I vow not to vote "oppose" during this election if I'm still a candidate. I may vote support (for some candidates) whilst still being a candidate myself. As above, if I decide to withdraw, I will then reserve the right to oppose. Danielyant|C]] ] 21:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC) reply

   Now, I thought it is already understood that regardless of support/opposes, there will be no hard feelings? Why would you rather give up part of your right to vote in this elections? - Mailer Diablo 21:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC) reply

   To maintain decorum and reduce friction. I'd rather be on the cautious side compared to taking a risk, however small, of infuriating someone. The only time, in my opinion, that someone should knowingly make an act they can predict will cause friction/disruption is when they are left with no alternative, or in Wikipedia's case, it benefits the encyclopaedia so much that the risk/result is worth it. My one vote doesn't supplement the risk. Danielyant|C]] ] 21:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'd say that you ultimately reserve the right to excercise your vote. It should be already understood by all respected and high-esteemed candidates that by the end of this election, there should be no hard feelings regardless of supports or opposes. As from my observations at the January elections, hard feelings usually come not from the votes, but from the comments that are associated with the votes. Henceforth, I think restraining to comment in your votes is the best way to go. - Good luck and best regards, Mailer Diablo 22:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC) reply

1. As a follow up to Brian New Zeeland's question above -- Based on your background, any prior conflicts, etc., are there any areas or topics where you anticipate receiving requests for recusal, or where you might consider self-recusal? If so, what are those areas and how would you decide whether to recuse? Thanks, TheronJ 19:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply

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.

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 10:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply

What is your feeling concerning the potential vote to desysop User:MONGO? User:Zoe| (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply