NB: I have withdrawn from the election. ★MESSED ROCKER★ 04:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Can you describe how you will deal with the feedback and inputs of the general community of editors on different cases? What kind of role will such outside opinions play in your work as an arbitrator? Rama's arrow 04:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   Unfortunately I won't be able to play the "I am not allowed to discuss this case" card like a typical judge since anyone can visit the Arbitration pages. Considering that, you have raised an excellent point. When discussing issues as an arbiter, I will have to constantly remind myself to only focus on the messages stated on the Arbitration pages. Maybe I can tell people to specifically not bring up the case unless they bring it up as testimony in the case! Since that won't always work, I will nonetheless do my best to only base it on things brought up during the ArbCom case. — this is messedrocker (talk) 11:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

2. You've only been an admin a couple of months. Do you think more experience as an admin would be helpful, or is this not so much a handicap? — Ashley Y 08:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   I have had wiki admin experience in general for over a year now (I have been Wikinews admin since October 2005), so I generally understand what it is like to deal with trolls. I understand that Wikinews is not Wikipedia, however I've at least lurked around the community of Wikipedia since November 2004. In general, I understand the Wikipedia culture and what it's like to deal with typical things admins have to deal with. Also, arbiters are generally about good judgment, which people have told me I have. In any case, I do not believe it's a handicap. — this is messedrocker (talk) 11:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

3. 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

   Personally, I believe that while the ArbCom may have taken away their adminship to begin with, admins are generally a community deal. My opinion is that if a user wants to become an admin again, they must get general clearance (as in, nothing fancy) by the ArbCom, then seek approval by the community (via RFA). — this is messedrocker (talk) 12:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

4. 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”. 12:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   If a group of people miraculously solved their dispute, then the Arbitration case should be closed since it'd be pointless. HOWEVER, seeing as it has had a past that made it go to ArbCom to begin with, they're always welcome to re-open their ArbCom case if their own resolution doesn't work out. — this is messedrocker (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

5. What role do you believe private discussions between the parties should play in determining the outcome of Arbitration cases? Fys. “ Ta fys aym”. 12:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   Private conversations between parties can be effective, since there may be some things they don't want to necessarily bring up before the ArbCom. However, it's a problem when it causes the arbiters to be out of the loop. As a reasonable compromise, if asked, parties should give the general jist what they've been talking about so we can understand while respecting the privacy they may wish to have via e-mail. — this is messedrocker (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   Thanks for responding so quickly. I was also thinking about private discussions between Arbitrators and the parties. Fys. “ Ta fys aym”. 12:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

6. 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”. 12:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   I'm a big believer in forgive-and-forget, however if a person is proving to be a persistent problem then I'm less forgiving. If a person has definitely demonstrated to be more mature in areas where they're allowed to edit (note the "allowed" -- they must respect their probation), and there's a good feeling that they'll be mature where they're currently restricted, then the probation should be lifted. One thing we could do is a short trial period so we can see how a person will act in the area where they're restricted. If at the end of the period the person can clearly handle it, then the probation should be lifted. — this is messedrocker (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

7. This is a standard question I'll be asking all candidates. What do you believe can be done to reduce delays in the arbitration process? Newyorkbrad 16:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   One thing that can be done in particular is to focus on the primary goal: settling on a binding compromise. A potential problem in any ArbCom case is that people will make a comment, and too much time is being focussed on the topic. This can result in things like bullying, accusations of this and that, and general bullshit. Instead of creating a whole other case for something someone said, just move on. If it's that someone made a naughty comment, yell at/punish them appropriately and move on. If there's a central goal, a series of distractions will only make things worse. — this is messedrocker (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

8. (This is to improve my knowledge as much as to know yours) What do you think about the problem of several admins misusing their tools or behaving poorly with others? What guideline and method would you follow as an arbitrator (and would want ArbCom to follow) in correcting/punishing abusive admins in cases that may come before you? Rama's arrow 18:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   I actually think about this more than it seems. While administrators are not supposed to be any more special than the next Wikipedian, part of being able to become an admin is that you have to be pretty cool. As a result, admins can potentially be seen as some sort of upper class with all sorts of powers to do whatever. Another thing that concerns me is that adminship is relatively easy to get, but in order to lose it you have to be involved in something like an ArbCom case where you're exposed to having doing things that makes the common troll blush. As an arbitrator, in cases involving admins, I would evaluate the overall behavior of admins and see if they really are as good of a person as they were when they were approved by the community for admin duties. Sometimes it's just that they get involved in something nasty so all that's needed is a bit of punishment, and sometimes some people just don't deserve to be admin. Admin abuse is not a black and white issue. — this is messedrocker (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

9. 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 18:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   A good way to enforce an ArbCom decision would be to have a specific person in charge of making sure that a specific person is adhering to their restrictions. As for a certain decision becoming a precedent, it is not necessary nor wise to try to predict the future. If the outcome of a case was so awesome that it's going to be used in the future, then so be it. — this is messedrocker (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

10. 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 03:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply

    To bring up Wikinews for the umpteenth time, I've written the parole requirements for a certain problem user. See Wikinews:Wikinews:Admin action alerts/Neutralizer. If I have a good idea for a settlement, then I will likely involve myself that way. — this is messedrocker (talk) 03:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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?
  • While I certainly have strong opinions in certain areas, I find that I'm pretty good at "checking my opinion at the door" as they say. However, if I feel that my personal opinion would conflict with my role as a neutral arbitrator, then I will definitely abstain. — this is messedrocker (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• How would you handle a case in which you were personally involved?
  • I would abstain as arbitrator and be involved as a person who was personally involved. — this is messedrocker (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"?
  • Going with the flow is indeed the easy way, especially since arbitrators are trusted to make good decisions. Sometimes, though, you just need to stand above the crowd and address the decision. It is better to think for yourself than to just do what everyone else does. — this is messedrocker (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• 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?
  • I will put in as much time as I possibly can (which is a lot since Wikinews ArbCom isn't very busy, plus I don't have a life, or more accurately, Wikipedia is my life). I can't pin down a specific number, but an arbiter should be able to spend as much time as possible. — this is messedrocker (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Do you think that someone who is critical of Arbitration Committee decisions is in violation of WP:AGF?
  • Being critical of someone's decision is not a failure to assume good faith — while decisions should be considered as good-faith as possible, that doesn't mean they can't be controversial. Now, if a person clearly states that Arbitrator X is out to get people because of personal beliefs and conspiracy and all that, then they have indeed failed to assume good faith. — this is messedrocker (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• 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?
  • An article that I edit often that is also edited by numerous other people is YTMND, which is about a website known for propogating Internet fads. When I originally saw the article, I noticed it was not up to acceptable standards, and as such I cleaned it up to the best of my ability. From that, I understand how a person feels if they see a substandard article and then they try to fix it up. Part of me cleaning up that article was wiping out a large section of unsourced information. From that, I can understand why edit wars could result — some people believe in content over sourcing, some people vice versa. While my edits have been mostly welcomed, I would completely understand it if someone were to come in and trash them. That's why Arbitration should be seen as dispute resolution and not entirely punitive. — this is messedrocker (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• What are your views with regards to transparency of ArbCom decisions?
  • I do not believe in secretive lynch mobbery — ArbCom decisions should be posted on the relevant page(s) and parties that would care should be informed. — this is messedrocker (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Do you think that administrators should be treated differently to non-administrators in ArbCom decisions? Brian | (Talk) 19:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • As I've stated above, while admins shouldn't be considered an upper class, in order to become an admin, you have to be the kind of person who is trustworthy. With that in mind, I trust admins to have better judgment though I also expect regular users to be well-behaved. — this is messedrocker (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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 03:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)) reply

   CheckUser and Oversight are very useful things, but both must be in the hands of someone who is very responsible. We cannot afford to have any level of abuse, especially in the case of Oversight. A good example of a person who could be assigned either status would be an arbiter or, even better, some sort of representative who is not part of the ArbCom but is selected by the ArbCom for these activities. These representatives would have to be pretty darn reliable. — this is messedrocker (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply

2. 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 06:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   I have not been involved in any arbitration cases, however I do have experience with settling disputes. My candidacy statement talks about the debate with the US soldier arrested for rape and four murders in Iraq article on Wikinews -- see the talk page archives for more details on that. I've also settled a debate there over a very problematic user who I had banned — luckily, I managed to come up with a parole that was agreed upon by the community. Anyways, I've seen Arbitration pages before, and I'm fairly sure on how they work. — this is messedrocker (talk) 12:02, 2 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.

• As much as I don't like saying it, the Arbitration Committee is very powerful — the only figures above it are Jimbo and the Foundation. With that in mind, please select the kind of people you'd trust with access to The Red Button. An issue that has been brought up in the past is editor accountability on Wikipedia. Because of Wikipedia's openness, we can be the biggest encyclopedia, as well as the most current. However, because of Wikipedia's openness, people are capable of acting irresponsible with little real-life repercussion. Luckily, because of Wikipedia's community model (featuring the community At Large in addition to admins, bureaucrats, ArbCom, and Jimbo), these people cannot get very far on Wikipedia. With that in mind, remember that the members of the committee must be reliable, responsible, and be ready to explain their actions. — this is messedrocker (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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?

• I honor the tradition that policies and guidelines are a community construct. However, at times the ArbCom may need to enact a policy immediately for A Really Good Reason. On that note, I'm not really interested in unilateral (or ArbCom-sanctioned) changes in policy unless such an issue arises where it'd be required. It should be noted that no policies should be permanent because consensus can change and so can the times. — this is messedrocker (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

2a. Interestingly, your answer contrasts candidate Uninvited Company's statement that "The arbcom should not be involved in legislating policy - that's for the community alone". Perhaps you may want to elaborate on when ArbCom should pass policy?

• I completely agree with UninvitedCompany — policies are for the community to decide. However, there may be at times when it is necessary the ArbCom (with the guidance of Jimbo) takes on policy of its own. The Office Actions policy, for example, was created and declared policy by Jimbo alone because it was very important for the survival of the encyclopedia. I agree that the ArbCom, for 99% of the part, should stay out of policy making unless a situation arises (which I do not know of yet) in which it'd be necessary. In short: extreme emergencies only. — this is messedrocker (talk) 11:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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?

• Seeing as I devote a large amount of time to wiki activities (what can I say, I love it!), I see no problem in helping out on those pages should I be given CheckUser or Oversight privileges. Yes, I understand the related policies, and know that the two are very serious and cannot afford to be abused whatsoever. — this is messedrocker (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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

• Integrity, accountability and transparency are being able to state things about users and their behavior publically and being able to respond calmly from resulting criticism without cowering to the other side of the debate in fear. — this is messedrocker (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

4a. 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?

• There's one thing that should be remembered: this is the Arbitration Committee, not the sole Arbitrator. While different arbitrators have different ideas, it has to be approved by the committee as a whole (well, at least enough for it to be considered consensus). Now, if we're talking about a sole person betraying their word which got them elected, should they resign? Frankly, I believe if an arbitrator is doing a good job, they should stay. But if they're not able to do a good job because they backed down on their word, then their position as Arbitrator should be questioned. — this is messedrocker (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

4b. What is your definition of an arbitrator "doing a good job"?

• If an arbitrator is responsible, reasonable, and coming up with agreeable settlements (things that at least a few people can agree on), then they're doing a good job. Simply put, not being a dick. ★MESSED ROCKER★ 11:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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 personally have no problem with fun jokes, unless (a) they are distracting people from real editing or (b) it involves actually vandalism of articles. Mind you we should maintain a professional appearance, which is why jokes should be limited to the Metapedian aspect of the website that isn't really known by the general public. ★MESSED ROCKER★ 16:15, 10 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?) :-)

I had fun answering them! :) ★MESSED ROCKER★ 03:06, 7 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?

   I do not believe ArbCom should have this power, nor should it, because policies are up to the community. I understand that this is in contradiction to what I have stated above, however that question has to do with these kinds of situations in general. However, since protecting children isn't really the kind of thing that would hold the community together for just a few seconds more, I don't believe the ArbCom should use any sort of emergency policy declaration powers (if any). However, the policy relates to the Child Online Privacy Protection Act, which is a US law (where the Foundation is located), so if anyone were to unilaterally declare this policy it should be the Foundation. Since the case at hand is a dispute about whether there's a consensus or not, one way we can approach it is by conducting a strawpoll to see where in general the community stands. The results could be used to further the development of the policy until it's approved by the community, or if there's an outstanding opposition it could be rejected. ★MESSED ROCKER★ 03:06, 7 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?

   Good question. While I don't believe in following process for the sake of it (i.e. don't undo something that didn't go through proper process unless there's a dispute), I can imagine there being a dispute if an admin got through with only 60% support. That being said, I don't want the ArbCom to be like the Supreme Court during the 2000 Presidential Election which declared Bush the winner. Rather, I'd rather the ArbCom determine if the bureaucrat made a mistake in promoting (opinions of users as well as general qualities of admin candidate would be considered), and take further action. ★MESSED ROCKER★ 03:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   Clarification, please. The Arbcom did determine that the RfA, failed to reach consensus, not quite the same thing as "the bureaucrat made a mistake in promoting", but close. Is that sufficient for you or not? If it is, what "further action" would you have recommended be taken? -- AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   I can summarize my general belief about these kinds of things: If it is not a case about a problem user, we should not treat it like one unless necessary. If the bureaucrat clearly made a mistake and is sorry and didn't mean to be a jerk, then they can be forgiven. However, if there's some sort of conspiracy going on, then further action could be taken. ★MESSED ROCKER★ 21:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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?

   This is not a black-and-white situation. There are different kinds: you have the good user which randomly gets into a bad situation, as well as the person that gradually gets to be less constructive, and the person who is very good except in a certain area where they're unconstructive. For the first, they should recognize that they made a mistake and apologize and make up for their mistake. For the second kind, it should be noted that they've gradually gotten worse, and treat them like a typical problematic user (in last resort situations, which ArbCom typically is). For the third kind, we simply should bar them from that area (ArbCom does this often). ★MESSED ROCKER★ 03:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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.

   It's all important. If it weren't important, we wouldn't do it. Without writing good articles Wikipedia would be poor quality, and without admins trolls would roam the wiki without anyone around to silence them. They complement each other like how a mouse complements a keyboard. When it comes to adminship, however, admins should remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that the entire concept of adminship is to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia. Even more important is that you can't take things too seriously. While Wikipedia is very important, it's always helpful to occasionally be fun and light-hearted — that's what makes writing the world's biggest encyclopedia so much fun! In summary, both are important, this is an encyclopedia nonetheless, and in either case try your best to not give yourself a stroke. ★MESSED ROCKER★ 03:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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.)

   Even if you didn't make the note that I wouldn't be a good arbiter if I was too lazy to research, I would've researched anyways. It took more than just randomly glancing at an ArbCom case to find one, since a lot of them were givens that were really hard to disagree on. Anyways, one that I particularly disagree with is the "Giano II" remedy at WP:RFAR/Giano; specifically the one that references to developers modifying block logs to get rid of "hate speech". While admins should be reprimanded for making hate speech, I personally don't find that as an excuse to change history. Keep in mind that I mean no harm or offense to Giano, but I think that modifying block logs because of hate speech sounds a bit extreme. ★MESSED ROCKER★ 03:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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'd like to address this answer to Fred Bauder himself. Mr. Bauder, thank you very much for your extensive volunteering for the Arbitration Committee. However, I would also like you to remember that while you may be prolific in that area, you are not the "king" of remedies/principles/finding-of-facts. While I'm pretty sure you're generally respecting of the other arbiters, if I see you acting in a way which leads one to assume you've taken the role of king over those three sections, I will ask you to cut it out. Again, I don't believe you would do that. ★MESSED ROCKER★ 03:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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) 17:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Non-admins on the ArbCom could be acceptable, heck, even helpful as a source of differing opinions (it'd also give the good image of the ArbCom being not so cabalistic). Ultimately, this is up to the community. But if it's up to the community to choose essentialy the final authority on disputes, then why can't they trust them with adminship? Maybe the person would be a good arbiter, but not be trustworthy with the buttons. I don't see the community electing non-admin arbiters anytime soon, but I won't rule it out. On that note, I wish Daniel Bryant good luck with the election. ★MESSED ROCKER★ 03:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply

And good luck to you as well, Messedrocker - I'm sure you'll recieve a large amount of support. Also thanks to AnonEMouse for including this question. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[  T ·  C ]} 08:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Your candidate statement (and an answer above) mentioned that you have experience with dispute resolution on Wikinews, I am not familiar with their process, how does it differ from Wikipedia's and how were you involved? Have you been involved in anything similar on Wikipedia? If not successful with the Arbitration Committee, will you seek a position with the Mediation Committee (on WP or WikiNews)? · maclean 07:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Wikinews dispute resolution is barely different — we have the typical talk page-mediation-WN:TEA-arbitration process of Wikinews. I am an arbitrator on Wikinews, however seeing as we've ironed out most of our on-site problems, Wikinews's RFAR page is considerably inactive. That is partially why I want to help out with Wikipedia's. As for dispute resolution on Wikipedia, I've recently helped iron out Template:Europe's issue with edit wars. Now they're on the progress of a peaceful resolution! If I do not get elected to the Arbitration Committee, then I will possibly seek a position on MedCom or MedCab — I would've applied to both in addition to ArbCom but if I was elected to both ArbCom and MedCom it would sure be stressful! :) ★MESSED ROCKER★ 14:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Q: 1. Who are you?

A: I am a Wikipedia contributor and administrator from the Northeastern United States, just as I have been for the past two years. My user page lists some things that I have done. I have also been a contributor on Wikinews for 14 months, where I have written news articles and improved conditions on the website in general. My interests include technology, science, and bringing quality education to all parts of the world. ★MESSED ROCKER★ 16:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Q: 2. Are you 13? Are you 18?

A: I am over 13 but under 18. If it's okay with you, I do not wish to disclose my age. ★MESSED ROCKER★ 16:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Q: 3. Should ArbCom arbitrate policy disputes or any other matter outside user conduct issues? Why or why not?

A: I understand that ArbCom is generally for disputes between editors, however I think we can explore the option of also dealing with editorial disputes. Just as in disputes between editors, we would evaluate all aspects of the situation and see which the best solution is. ★MESSED ROCKER★ 16:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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

I haven't heard of Scientific Point of View before, so I did a little bit of research and to me it looks no different than the combination of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. However, is that it says that it should deny coverage of unscientific viewpoints. While it does make an exception towards highly prominent ones, I still believe that a true neutral point of view takes covers viewpoints proportional to the length of the article (major viewpoints get most coverage, notable minorities get a section or so, tiny yet notable minorities are represented at least a bit). ★MESSED ROCKER★ 02:26, 11 November 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 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?

1. I'm not going to rule out the possibility of me resigning (most likely due to stress potentially caused by someone who disagrees with me), though I don't find myself to be the kind who resigns. I would rather take short breaks (like I have on Wikinews), so when my mind is refreshed I will be able to face the ArbCom with a positive outlook. ★MESSED ROCKER★ 19:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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. How would I handle it? I would handle it as a student. I would do research on the topic matter (just as I've done to help with the Soy protein article's dispute), get an understanding of why there is a dispute, and see what solution can come of it. The good thing about neutral point of view is that it allows you to acknowledge within the article that there are differing viewpoints. One such resolution could require that that is acknowledged. ★MESSED ROCKER★ 19:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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 13:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello, Dakota. Since the fun of Wikipedia is developing articles, I will be sure to do that when I can (though lately I haven't found anything to work on besides my informal mediation). As always, I will still be availiable for giving advice. If elected, ArbCom will take a large amount of my time but I do hope to at least still do some other things. ★MESSED ROCKER★ 20:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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!) 14:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Very good question. I personally believe that if such circumstances were to arise that I should change my opinion, I would do so; it is pointless to defend an invalid argument. One time where I had changed my mind was when I nominated an article for AFD: there were plenty of arguments that supported a merge and I ended up changing my mind. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You're the man now, dog. ★MESSED ROCKER★ 15:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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?

When there is an error of judgement, I would request that the person with the error of judgement to reëvaluate his or her opinion while trying to show them how they are wrong. ★MESSED ROCKER★ 21:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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

I have thought about things like this; how I am concerned that an action of mine would gain me unpopularity. While I always aim to please people, there are certainly times in which you have to forego the idea of you being popular and speak your mind. You can support evil by doing nothing about it (not to say that people who go to ArbCom are evil). Anyways, if I had to say something or make a decision that was definitely important, I would go out and say it. If I get pelted with tomatoes and copies of Encyclopædia Britannica, then that's life. ★MESSED ROCKER★ 21:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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

I don't really think that a single policy is above any of the others; rather I see it as a tiered system. While all policies and guidelines are important (and ignorable, if that helps the encyclopedia), here's how I see it:

• WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR as the top tier of encyclopedic standards -- these are givens, hardly negotiable, and should be acceptable by everyone. I also consider WP:BLP as equally important however it is more of a strict enforcement of policy than it is a policy in itself.
• WP:C is very important because if it's a copyright violation then it has to go. While I'd generally be able to detect this first in an article, I don't really think about it unless it's blatantly obvious.
• I am a big fan of WP:RS as a person who does research to improve Wikipedia articles -- you have to be careful when citing any sources, whether Internet or offline. The Internet is good if you want currency, however you have to make sure that the website is of a scholarly environment and they are accontable for what they write. Always be weary of any source that is affiliated with the sales of goods similar to what they write about. Last but not least, you have to use your intuition and make sure a source isn't bullshit.
• Last, but not least, is WP:N. Notability requirements are a good idea, however I personally believe that if an article has usable sources ( WP:V and WP:RS), is not based on any original research ( WP:NOR), is or can be written in a neutral point of view ( WP:NPOV), and definitely warrants being inside of an encyclopedia (that's where WP:NOT kicks in), then there's no reason why it shouldn't be on Wikipedia.

★MESSED ROCKER★ 21:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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?

ArbCom could function as a judge and jury. As an executioner, it's basically up to individual admins to enforce a punishment (though an arbiter could do it). ArbCom should essentially take all the jobs that involve analyzing information that is there, seeing what the motivations could have been, seeing what could have provoked it, and remedying everything appropriately. ★MESSED ROCKER★ 23:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply

2. What would wikipedia lose if you were appointed to the ArbCom?

If I get elected, then hopefully Wikipedia will not lose anything seeing as I still intend on working on articles after I get elected. ★MESSED ROCKER★ 23:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply

3. You didn't really answer the question about making or abolishing a policy. I think the point of the question is to establish that you understand policy well enough to have found at least one weak spot somewhere, even if you don't feel strongly enough to campaign to change it. Let me put the same question another way: which is your least favourite policy? Where do you think we need more in the way of rules or guidelines?

Regards, Ben Aveling 21:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I'd have to say that I am not a big fan of how Wikipedia:No legal threats has been used to silence outsiders who had really serious qualms about their articles. For example, when certain people who have been worried about their articles brought it up, and involved legal threats, they were shunned out of nowhere with No Legal Threats. Now, if I were an outsider, I would be shocked, seeing as I would have had no idea. In any case, I think WP:BLP should help remedy any problems that would warrant such legal threats to begin with. ★MESSED ROCKER★ 23:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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.

Making sure users are disciplined is quite good, and so is making sure policy is applied consistently. Though I feel that neither of these are as important as using your common sense: if it's clear the user is acting destructive towards the project, then that should be remedied appropriately. If the user is benefitting the project, they should be rewarded (or at least not punished). Now, let's apply this to your options: strict discipline vs. strict policy enforcement. If an admin is causing harm by interpreting policy so literally everyone can get blocked, that's harmful. Conversely, if an admin is not being strict enough ("this is your three hundred fifty-second warning!"), that's bad. It's hard to pin this down as worded policy -- it's mostly intuitive. ★MESSED ROCKER★ 21:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply