Since this is a late entry and the race will start soon, I’ve looked over the questions everyone is asking and tried to pre-empt a few of them:
1. Do you have dispute resolution experience in any of the following areas: Wikipedia:Mediation Committee, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal, Wikipedia:Third opinion, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, or Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates? If not successful with the Arbitration Committee, will you seek a position with the Mediation Committee?
2. In your candidate statement and in notes above you mention that your experience with on religion-related articles has given you little patience for POV-pushers. Is it possible to turn POV-pushers into otherwise good editors? In your experience, does this transformation ever happen in reality?
First, thanks for running, and thanks for the summary above of your views on the questions that have been asked elsewhere.
My question arose when I was looking at your block log. It seems to me that you have, in the past, decided to leave. Can you explain why you left, why you came back, and, if elected, whether you would commit to a three year term and not similarly leave the project again? Thanks. Carcharoth 05:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply
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?
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?
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 Wikipedia: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?
8.One just for you: As an arbcom member, how would you treat an admin who comes before the arbcom for having redirected the administrator's noticeboard to another administrator's talk page? How about for deleting the Articles for Deletion page? citation needed AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply
In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?
In one sentence, what will you bring to the Arbitration Committee? Dfrg.m s c 1 . 2 . Editor Review 23:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply
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
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 thirteen 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?
1. Your candidate statement mentions that you have "battled with POV pushers, trolls and nutters of all creeds and none" in the area of religion, and have dealt with "libels, copyvios, agenda pushers – and problem users" in various articles that raised WP:LIVING issues. Do you feel that you have been identified with a particular "side" in any of these issues that may give rise to calls for recusal in disputes relating to religion or biography articles? If so, what process would you use to decide whether to recuse in conflicts relating to those articles?
2. Based on your background, any prior conflicts, etc., are there any other 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
19:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
Place questions here, thanks
Since this is a late entry and the race will start soon, I’ve looked over the questions everyone is asking and tried to pre-empt a few of them:
1. Do you have dispute resolution experience in any of the following areas: Wikipedia:Mediation Committee, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal, Wikipedia:Third opinion, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, or Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates? If not successful with the Arbitration Committee, will you seek a position with the Mediation Committee?
2. In your candidate statement and in notes above you mention that your experience with on religion-related articles has given you little patience for POV-pushers. Is it possible to turn POV-pushers into otherwise good editors? In your experience, does this transformation ever happen in reality?
First, thanks for running, and thanks for the summary above of your views on the questions that have been asked elsewhere.
My question arose when I was looking at your block log. It seems to me that you have, in the past, decided to leave. Can you explain why you left, why you came back, and, if elected, whether you would commit to a three year term and not similarly leave the project again? Thanks. Carcharoth 05:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply
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?
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?
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 Wikipedia: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?
8.One just for you: As an arbcom member, how would you treat an admin who comes before the arbcom for having redirected the administrator's noticeboard to another administrator's talk page? How about for deleting the Articles for Deletion page? citation needed AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply
In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?
In one sentence, what will you bring to the Arbitration Committee? Dfrg.m s c 1 . 2 . Editor Review 23:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply
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
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 thirteen 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?
1. Your candidate statement mentions that you have "battled with POV pushers, trolls and nutters of all creeds and none" in the area of religion, and have dealt with "libels, copyvios, agenda pushers – and problem users" in various articles that raised WP:LIVING issues. Do you feel that you have been identified with a particular "side" in any of these issues that may give rise to calls for recusal in disputes relating to religion or biography articles? If so, what process would you use to decide whether to recuse in conflicts relating to those articles?
2. Based on your background, any prior conflicts, etc., are there any other 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
19:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
Place questions here, thanks