As the result of new light, I'm going to withdraw my candidacy, and would like to thank those who took the time and effort to ask me questions here.

As it turns out, one of my original reasons for nominating myself had to do with cost-benefit. What could I possibly do for the project to warrant the cost in time and effort. As it turns out, I was reading through Noam Chomsky's biography, and this in turn led me to the biography (via the Chomsky hierarchy) of a scientist who is cited in my field (and whose research I have in fact cited in my own writing). This presented me with one of those "absurd loops" I mentioned in an earlier reply, and to escape the loop -- I've decided that it's best to move on to seeing what I can do via being an expert editor in that very narrow field to try to at least clean up some of the issues I see as existing there. I had thought that my area of science was so absolutely boring and dry (without all of the juice to most of a petrified potato). But there it was: something that appeared to me to be POV-slanting against a computer scientist of some renown. All his life's work, reduced to what appeared to me to be an unbalanced presentation of the chap. Alas. The time is not ripe for me to stand back and be distant. I'm going to re-adjust and see what I can do to help adjust those kinds of things happening. The slow way. The boring way. The absurd way. Such is life. Live and learn. ;-)

In any case, all best wishes to all the candidates, -- QTJ 00:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Two words I use a lot in the following answers are "teleology" and "deontology" (or some derivative).

In the sense I mean them:

• Deontology goes to "rules" and "rights".

"X is always wrong, even if the result Y is right."

• Teleology goes to "the final consequence".

"X is not wrong overall if the result of having done X is to the right."

As explained in the answers, I see arbitration as having to balance these two schools of ethical arbitration. Rights are or are not violated -- rules are or are not broken. This is a two-valued, deontological system. One tempers and adjusts the consequences of a wrong using teleological system: if the violation of a principle has great likelihood of harm: this is where the balance is made. This is a modal system. The balance is never made by nullifying the wrongness of the act itself, but in tempering the response to that wrong act.

This explains how I have used the terms below. -- QTJ 19:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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

Brian | (Talk) 19:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

(Note from QTJ: I have put Brian New Zealand's original sig above this line, and have subsectioned off each question to allow for future ease of subquestions, since "all as one" due to the length of some of my answers makes that very difficult. -- QTJ 20:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)) reply

Q1

• 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?
  • Of course I hold strong opinions of all sorts and kinds, across many such areas. That said, I am an apolitical libertarian -- I do not vote in governmental elections and have not aligned myself to any party, but am a libertarian in so far as I believe there is too much government just about everywhere and that human societies tend to be locally self-correcting so as to not need so many intrusions as they receive. In the case of religion, I consider that a matter of personal belief, and as such, outside the scope of what can be considered on a particular case -- it is simply not tangible enough to hold into consideration. As a scientist (computing), I separate the two all the time as an autonomic function of the processes involved in science -- the separation of belief and observation is not something requiring an effort or force. That to say that I would not recuse myself in such cases because these things would not enter into application of community standards here at Wikipedia -- the community standards of Wikipedia are not built on the outside-of-Wikipedic notions of politics and religion and thus stand outside of the scope of what one must consider to be fair without a conflict arising. -- QTJ 20:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • It occurred to me that it might be illustrative to point to a wikindcident were there most certainly are notions of religious opinions. A few weeks back, while wandering the Net, I came across my full name in a list by belief system. I'm not a big fan of such lists. To top it off, well, the wiki in question is POV with a very, very strong non-scientific demeanor, IMO, despite its stated mission. So there is my name (thus I wasn't a disinterested party) sitting on a list by belief system (a concept I find kind of a modern McCarthyism), on a site that ... well ... here's how I handled it. Dignified? Well, I probably made somewhat of a jackass of myself. So what? I didn't attempt to disrupt the place, even though I consider my being listed like that prejudicial. I stated my case within the framework presented, tried to clear up a few things, and offered to help clean up some of their pages. I found that some of the arguments against certain claims were, well, very weak, logically and weren't doing them much of a service if they were representing "scientists" with them. Strong opinions? Yeah. One for every day of the week. But this is the world we live in these days ... people setting up sites, declaring that others have "no right" to not be listed against their objection -- and listed in any way the site feels suits their agenda or mission. How many windmills is one Quixote like me going to tilt? I try to pick my windmills wisely these days, whether I'm personally interested or not.
  • Be that as it may, although not a political or religious opinion issue, there is one situation where I must refuse to participate in a way that is entirely to the "good of the project" -- and this being the situation where there is real and immediate potential for harm to the public good at large. As a member of various professional bodies, I am obliged to always put the public good above all other considerations, and this obligation does not vanish in the Wikisphere by some cultural magic. I would instead be obliged to act to protect the public trust in as non-disruptive manner as possible. (Very likely by making my concerns immediately known to other arbitrators via a backchannel, per later discussion on transparency in this Q&A.) Here, recusal would be willful blindness. It's not something I anticipate as happening so often as to be disruptive, but it is a real conflict-of-interest that could arise. -- QTJ 03:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Q2

• How would you handle a case in which you were personally involved?
  • In much the same manner as seen in this recent diff, which I posted recently, but before realizing I could nominate myself here. -- QTJ 20:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • It has been considered within certain communities outside Wikipedia that conflicts of interest cannot always be avoided, and that recusal is not the only solution to a perceived conflict of interest. DISCLOSURE of potential conflicts that might reasonably arise is seen to be a workable solution, and the wording of many professional bodies' codes of ethics now reflect some flavor of this approach. ^{[1] [2] [3]} This allows what could be an opaque situation to be a cooperative and consensual situation, rather than a confrontational/accusatory process. How realistic disclosure of potential conflicts is across the board in a community that doesn't require identity disclosure, I do not know. In my case, I do disclose my potential areas of COI. This is not intended to be a model for others: I do it in my specific case to avoid potential issues that I have seen debated in the backchannels of Wikipedia. Conflicts could exist in some areas, and I try to be careful. Not just out of courtesy, but to avoid a later appearance of impropriety. In the diff in the previous sentence, for instance, since I am the author of a commercial parsing tool, to merge that stub into the main article itself could have the appearance of an attempt to give that form of parsing less weight than others might consider it to have. As a specialist in the field, I sense that that stub won't grow much as yet without highly specialist editors' help. I am probably able to extend that stub to a full page with many citations -- beyond stubhood, since I understand the parsing method quite deeply and have studied it in some considerable depth, but to do so could lead to far too many perceptions -- so I simply made my concern known and will let eventualism take over from there. Another computer scientist might fully be able to describe with no passion whatsoever something very close to his or her field and particular specialty -- but it may not always be prudent to do so in a context such as Wikipedia: too much cultural context involved. Computer scientists do it of each other's results all the time (such as in the state of the art literature review found in a thesis) -- but in a much different context -- so why invite a dispute in another context that really isn't necessary? I simply cannot expect to have to explain that how things are done in the computer science culture (impartial discussion of another scientist's work) can "map" to Wikipedia culture, since they may not map all that well. ^[4] Not for me to try to work through this type of issue to its fullest depth. -- QTJ 21:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Q3

• How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"?
  • Are you asking if I would bend to a hypothetical Parliamentary Whip on a decision of arbitration I myself would make in the face of the evidence supplied in the case? If my own interpretation of case differed so widely from the consensus of the ArbCom that such a desire would stir inside me as to contest it, I would first be very sure to analyze my own reasons for standing against the normalized decision. Perhaps I have not subjugated my own belief to the actual spirit of the policies in place, for instance? Perhaps I have been hasty where others more thorough? Perhaps I have failed to see the bigger picture? That said, if in good conscience, after such introspection, I still felt a particular decision to be out of the mandate of the ArbCom, or misapplied, or whatever, I would not showboat or grandstand about it and remember what the function of any individual arbitrator truly is. Is it to change these things from within? How so? By public declarations of protestation? I think perhaps one would have to recuse oneself from such a public stance in order to avoid going against the spirit and purpose of the individual arbitrator, and raise those concerns within the system framework as it stands, and not invent something on the spot to try to attempt jury-nullification where it doesn't belong. That said: I'd put it to deep and sober consideration before jumping to a specific action. -- QTJ 20:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I have a very, very long record of being known as a person of his convictions even when it comes down to random anonymous types dragging my name around the mulberry bush. (Big, noisy Google footprint on my full name.) I speak up when I perceive an injustice, and pay the price against the collateral of my real name. As it relates to this question -- I have never been one to hide behind the Force of the Many. If it boils down to an absolute violation of trust: I've a record for putting my walk where my talk is, even at personal cost in "meatspace". I don't fight to my own demise if the cause turns out to have been tainted, however. I know when to recant, as well. I'm thick, but not that dense. I'll eat my words if proven hasty or ill-considered. -- QTJ 04:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Q4

• 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?
  • Everything has a cost. One of the costs of becoming an arbitrator is that I would lose an ability to initiate changes of some things I feel need changing, to avoid possible conflicts. Another is that I would lose time to it. How many hours? Don't know. Can't assume. -- QTJ 21:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • As for "willing to put in the time" ... It would be a time-benefit-shift for me. I can only do so much good in any number of possible capacities here at Wikipedia. Very shortly, I will have worn out how much good I can do in the parsing and formal language articles. At the point where that good I can do with those has been reached, to continue to be of any use I have several options: 1) start moving commas around in articles I don't have full expertise in; 2) seek to become a mediator or something like that; 3) start lobbying; 4) seek to become an admin. Each of those has a cost in time, as well, and the amount of good I would do pushing around commas and semicolons is not all that much for the time it would eat. Mediation, too, is an exhausting process, and although I could probably succeed at it, very little good-for-cost, again. Lobbying has its charms, and its dangers. Adminship I do not want. I'm not a particularly efficient administrator. So, not being in a situation where I would be using my available time to do those things -- I would trust in the machine that those things will get done well without me. They were doing just fine before I arrived on the scene, after all. Arbitration, however, requires a certain disposition and neutral, fence sitting way of seeing the world, while at the same time requires that the fence sitter be a decisive person once the all clear as been called. It requires a dispassionate analyst nature combined with brass ones. Those I have. And thus, the time would be well spent for the potential returns to the project, IMO. -- QTJ 10:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Q5

• Do you think that someone who is critical of Arbitration Committee decisions is in violation of WP:AGF?
  • In my view, that's not for an arbitrator to decide until some outside force has brought the specific case up for possible arbitration. If some editor or editors in the community feel it is, then they can present their evidence for a possible case for arbitration. It would then be up to the ArbCom to decide if it merited arbitration on a case-by-case basis, rather than by some sweeping policy against or for such a notion. -- QTJ 20:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Addendum: The above response, of course, assumes that the claim of violation of AGF for being critical of the ArbCom decisions wasn't handled to satisfaction in the other usual ways first. -- QTJ 05:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Q6

• 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?
  • I will provide diffs that I believe support the following list (and will sign each upper point when I consider that particular point documented sufficiently): -- QTJ 21:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC) (Note: Wikipedia, being as it is in a state of constant flux -- well, in some of the items below, very recent diffs are provided -- can't be helped if they happen to illustrate the points presented. -- QTJ 23:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)) reply
    • Ability to proactively avoid (potential) conflict. -- QTJ 04:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply
      • While quite willing to clean up (mechanically) a bio of someone I know personally -- here and here.
      • When something like this happens, then...
        • something less opaque then simply reverting happens, to avoid opening up a whole 'nother can of worms on what turned out to be a deeper issue than I first realized.
        • But even then, that doesn't mean I will just close my eyes to the underlying de-personaled and general potential issues that might be involved. As seen here and here and ultimately here.
          • That to say -- I feel one can recuse oneself from specifics without losing track of the principles (not princpals) involved.
    • Ability to proactively invite criticism so as to avoid POV-pushing/stepping-on-toes. -- QTJ 19:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply
      • CASE 1:-- QTJ 05:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Noticed an {{expert}} tag in my domain of expertise, announced my intention to edit boldy -- here.
        • Waited quite a while (while rewriting the article in plain view on my user page -- subpage now gone via db-owner).
        • Pasted bold changes -- here.
        • Refactored original announcement to reflect the present state of the article -- here.
        • Slowly continued editing in its new state, so anyone could jump in -- evolution from bold paste seen here.
      • CASE 2: -- QTJ 05:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Similar to CASE 1 above, noticed {{expert}} tag in my domain of expertise, announced my intention to edit boldly. here.
        • Unlike CASE 1 -- someone jumped in and revised my smaller edit to the article. here.
        • Revised that revision, with an edit summary showing I was quite willing to play edit tag rather than go it alone. here.
        • Article evolved collaboratively in real-time rather than all-at-once. As seen in this overall diff from my "tag you're it" to the present state of the article.
          • Was called on a statement made (originally by someone who'd edited it in the past much earlier) in the article. here.
          • Responded with "chapter and verse" to show the statement was correct as in the article. here
          • Modified the main article to clarify the "called statement" for Jane Average Reader, wikifying the pumping lemma reference, since that exact topic is already covered thoroughly in the main namespace and uses the same citation I did. here.
    • Ability to win-win negotiate a change to an initially contested/reverted change. -- QTJ 04:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Recognized within my area of expertise an unsourced wide scope statement and practiced deletionism -- here.
      • Change was reverted -- here.
      • Asked for clarification as to why the reversion was necessary and expressed my concerns -- here.
      • Discussed possible acceptable rewordings -- here and here.
      • Made change -- here.
      • Last call -- here.
      • Consensus reached -- here.
    • Ability to employ a self-critical sense of humor to avoid overseriousiteness where not called for.
      • Although not in the main namespace -- an illustrative recent (ahem) example of an unintentional screw up followed by a half-hearted attempt to make light of my own tired eyes (oy -- "Editor, heal thy WP:SELF.") -- QTJ 00:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Ability to see both sides of an issue one has a solid stance on and refactor and/or compromise and acknowledge a salient point made. On this article discussion page (now archived)
    • Ability to screw up!
      • Diff evidence exists for my screw ups. It's not false self-deprecation to say so. However (ahem!) in the interest of not filling this page with poorly chosen words, comma splices from heck, misspellings, and tired eye syndrome, please take it on good faith that I am quite ready and able to screw up in the main namespace and don't get my nose out of joint when the Watchlist jumps up with someone else's having fixed my blunders of form. See??!!! -- QTJ 00:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply
    • As of signing this line -- no warning templates to date. -- QTJ 23:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC) (Oh oh -- beans .... here it comes.... ;-) reply
    • Ability to foresee technical/mechanical hotspots and leave breadcrumbs only a future editor will see, to avoid a possible pitfall. <!-- Via HTML commenting -- >. While such notes might be seen as some as unnecessary pedagogics, the need for these particular notes in this particular article based on this diff.
      • Pointing out that someone mentioned by name in an article is not the person listed on Wikipedia biography. - Same article as above diff.
        • "Johnson<!-- note:don't wikify name: not same MarkJ -->"
      • Pointing out that a very specific use of a word otherwise commonly mistakenly used was intentionally so used in a given context. - Same article as above diff.
        • "effect<!--to carry out, not "affect"--> a top-down"

Q7

• What are your views with regards to transparency of ArbCom decisions?
  • As I understand the backchannels of Wikipedia, they exist to allow for the reaching of a goal; in this case, the eventual creation of an all-encompassing body of human knowledge. As such, the channels that are transparent (user pages, user discussion pages, et cetera) exist to serve that goal, and for no other reason. (I will not supply all the policy and guideline statements that support my interpretation, due to space). The use of email or lists outside of the scope of Wikipedia's public face (and those channels discussed so far are public), has its purpose. Arbitration, however, is not necessarily always going to be fully public if the final good is considered. It may sometimes be in the best interests of the stated goal to avoid embarrassing disputants, and to openly discuss some possible concerns (between arbitrators, not between disputants) in full view would be counterproductive to the goal. This does not imply that what might be said behind the scenes should be counter to the spirit of the more public discussion, but that by being less accessible, one avoids hurting people's feelings or overly exposing some aspects that might be considered. The project does not exist to make people feel miserable or leave noise of their lives in full view of Google, even in the face of decisions made in arbitration about their participation on Wikipedia. -- QTJ 03:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Q8

• Do you think that administrators should be treated differently to non-administrators in ArbCom decisions?
  • What's an administrator? Um... oh, yeah ... no. Cutting to the chase: I don't think they should. Case-by-case in all cases, just in case such stratification and double-standards became encased. -- QTJ 21:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Having said that, one mustn't forget that there are two aspects to the arbitration process (at least): Finding of Fact and Remedies. Facts don't care if one is Fred Astaire, Lee Harvey Oswald, Nat King Cole, or Mother Theresa. Evidence is presented, and judged by rules of evidence and against deontological principles. Remedies, however, do care. They are based upon teleological principles: how can one (given the facts as having been established), protect and correct? An administrator who has a habit of telling editors he doesn't agree with to go bleep bleep bleep and don't let the door hit them on the way out (let's say) is no different from a user doing the same. If the administrator has never been found to use an administrative privilege to "achieve" this exit upon another -- the remedy will not include losing a privilege of that sort. Abuse of an administrative power, however, has a number of remedies that would mean nothing in the context of a normal user. And so on. So, while "facts are facts" -- not all remedies can be equal, and in this sense there may sometimes necessarily be a varying standard of measures mandated to protect the project and correct the situation. The process, however, for each, is identical: examine the evidence, accept or reject the evidence item by item, make a determination as to whether or not a threat indeed exists to the community (or whatever), and then decide, taking everything into account, on how that is to be corrected (and take into account at this point what measures are required for this to be carried out with minimal negative impact to all concerned parties). -- QTJ 10:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• A question I'm posing to all the candidates: What can be done to reduce the delays in the arbitration process? Newyorkbrad 19:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • As stated in my candidate statement, I do not wish to be an arbitrator, and this wasn't meant as humor. Some delays of process can result from an overabundance of love for administratrivia. While due process requires not being hasty -- the amount of work one takes on, when provided such a goal based filter tends towards necessity rather than legalism. In other words, a desire to see an issue resolved when subjected to due process, and no other desire than to see the process maximally used only to solve the issues at hand, would tend, in my view, to reduce unnecessary delays, while allowing for those considered necessary to proper returns from arbitration's necessary mechanics. -- QTJ 20:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

(Note from QTJ: Subsectionized per note in questions from Brian New Zealand. -- QTJ 20:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)) reply

Q1

• 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”. 22:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • One of the necessary lessons one learns in "real world" dispute resolution is that the best binding decision is the one you never have to make, or as Sun Tzu might say, (paraphrased): "The General best wins the battle who fights no battle at all." Granted, arbitration is not mediation, and is a court of last resort, but even then, if two parties somehow come to an understanding or bargain and present their mutual "plea bargain" pertaining to some aspect of a case that applies only to those concerned parties, I would tend towards allowing them that graceful saving of face and exit stage right. Those aspects of the issue that affected any party of the issue not willing to go that route, of course, would have to remain open if the prima facie case for arbitration was then evaluated to not have been settled in a manner likely to resolve the concerns. -- QTJ 22:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Q2

• What role do you believe private discussions between the parties and members of the committee should play in determining the outcome of Arbitration cases? Fys. “ Ta fys aym”. 22:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I believe this question is more or less fully answered above in another section. That said, to reiterate for emphasizication: it would seem that the purpose of arbitration is not to publicly pillory the disputants, but to allow decisions to be made such that Wikipedia is not brought to a functional standstill during a dispute that could not be resolved by other means. Any information that might lead to that goal but that would possibly cause undue embarrassment or distress to the disputants, or any inter-arbitrator communication that might have to brainstorm in a way that could be seen to be unduly hypothetical and possibly WP:BEANS ... these situations would be best dealt with on a case-by-case basis in less accessible channels, but always in the spirit of solving the problem as presented to arbitration, not just to provide a safe place to vent frustification.
  • Well, maybe not "fully" answered in the first answer, so I'll add here (since this subsection isn't as long as the first): It has been my general observation that Wikipedia is modeled as an attempt (or at least to self-identify, if nothing else) towards being a self-correcting cooperative game. (Please don't take the word "game" to mean "play" -- going to game theory here, not frivolity.) Rules such as AGF and the ArbCom itself are an attempt towards it being a cooperative, rather than non-cooperative game. Since it strives to be self-correcting, it would hold that it must observe itself "in play" and this is facilitated by self-transparency. (That is: it can see itself, blemishes and all.) (Technically, it has elements of both cooperative and non-cooperative games, but I won't get into hairsplitting.) The meta-game in which Wikipedia exists, the "real Internet" and in turn where that exists (the "real world"), however, can be assumed to be a non-cooperative game. To reduce loss to the disputants in that outer context sometimes require less transparency to that context. This reduces the outer-cost to the disputant, and to Wikipedia itself. If some evidence is presented in full view of that outer world then some disputants will be harmed outside of the safety and sanctity of the Wikipedia system. Phone numbers, real names, places of work, revelations that involve any of these to show conflict-of-interests, for instance, have potential to harm disputants in that world. The greater good of the project is not served by harming disputants themselves, but only in protecting the project. In cases like this, "prudence is required" to avoid that harm. And this might mean some evidence being presented quietly and out of view of prying eyes with random motives. -- QTJ 20:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Q3

• 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”. 22:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • This one will take some time to answer cogently. Please stand by. -- QTJ 01:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC) OK, after some thought, I am going to abstain from answering this question. I will explain why if specifically asked why I abstained, but otherwise just "abstain". -- QTJ 02:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• As functions assigned by ArbCom, describe your view on the assignments of Oversight and Checkuser permissions, including thresholds for (or even the possibility of) new applicants. (Question from — xaosflux ^Talk 03:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)) reply
  • These are two serious permissions, and have serious repercussions that go beyond the cultural aspects that have evolved on Wikipedia. The ability to hide personal information (phone numbers et cetera) protects the public good above and beyond a Wikipedia context, and its potential for abuse (the ability to see such previously hidden content, for instance) presents some serious implications as well. Given the serious nature of such tools, I would absolutely defer personally endorsing their assignment (that is, I would abstain) until I had an absolute feel for how they are assigned in practice, and in the event I felt such a functionality was being prematurely for a reason I could quantify -- I'd raise the concern. Given that the likelihood would be that the reason for raising the concern might be WP:BEANS, this is likely a case where my concern would be expressed concisely and clearly to other arbitrators, in a backchannel, so as to not embarrass anyone. Serious powers such as this require real-world objectivity and not local context, in my opinion. -- QTJ 03:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• 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 06:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply

1. As a former Chief Architect, one of my roles was to make decisions not only of an architectural nature, but in more "soft" areas. I had to hear cases (often quite convincing from all sides presenting) for and against local strategies by developers and rule with responsibility when called upon to do so. This wasn't just in matters of code, but went to balancing corporate and departmental goals and directions. Software developers are, in many ways, like a lot of Wikipedia editors: highly critical individuals with a good dose of healthy skepticism. Making binding decisions that mandated how they went about their day-to-day and project-based goals, then, while maintaining some semblance of day to day orderliness was sometimes like herding cats.
2. I presented a few points of evidence in an outstanding case that I then recently recused myself from due to knowing personally one of the biography subjects whose biography and work are under discussion in that particular arbitration. Much of my "experience" with ArbCom is in having analyzed arbitration cases from the POV of a complex systems analyst. (And if ArbCom cases aren't complex -- what is???)
3. Much of my experience in settling disputes (besides that noted in answer 1 above), while driven by some measured understanding of the human and other forces involved, rests in the areas of advocacy and mediation and involvement as a disputant rather than arbitration. Understanding how to avoid being faced with a binding decision from on high, in my opinion, is the ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure. I've been involved with some form of electronic community since 1991, and in all that time, have been banned from one community, and warned only once. I voluntarily went against that warning (which led to the ban) -- that once -- because my request to not be taunted further was not honored (I was taunted 3 days after leaving the discussion, and fired ONE "ahem" -- that wasn't heeded -- so I released my steam and was banned). Considering how many disputes I have been a participant in (as an advocate, disputant, points-of-contention or threat analyst, or interested party) on the Internet (or other communal network such as FidoNet) since 1991 -- one warning and one ban (that I prompted on principle against myself) seems about as much "dispute resolution" as one can get in those roles.
4. I've got three teen-aged kids. Enough said. ;-) -- QTJ 10:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• 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 13:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply

1. No opinion per se. See the question above on admins being a subjected to the same findings of fact, but possibly different remedies, due to different consequences towards the good.
2. This depends a good deal on the egregiousness of the reasons for desysopping in the first place. An egregious violation of the public trust would have to answer to a corresponding expression of having regained that trust. I personally feel that lobbying to regain that expression of trust would be in poor form ... it should be the result of the masses coming to that conclusion on their own, without being solicited by the party concerned. If the masses don't want to return a desysopped admin to adminship, they'll vote by staying quiet. If they form a body on their own and declare wide forgiveness and clemency -- it will have been because they see that doing so will benefit the project by returning a rehabilitated admin to adminship. A more administrative involuntary remedy would be subjected to more administrative re-adminship, IMO.
3. Every lynch pin power requires a safeguard. Even an ArbCom decision is ultimately and theoretically subject to the clemency of higher reserved powers. Does the current system create more problems for the project than it proposes to correct? This would seem to me to be a deeper issue than can be summarized off-the-cuff and without taking the current state of things into account. A very deep well to have to pull water from. -- QTJ 18:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Thank you for your answers! :) - Mailer Diablo 14:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for the questions! -- QTJ 19:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

(Note from QTJ: Section reorganized and above "thanks" moved to top for reasons mentioned in Brian New Zealand's question section above. In the case of the present section, I've tried to keep follow-ups in the same section regardless of intentation level. -- QTJ 20:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)) reply

Q1

• 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.
  • Effectively editors are selecting the penultimate fitness function not only for themselves, but for the masses of editors, as pertains to protecting the Wikipedia project from damage both internally and externally. To select hastily might lead to a local fitness in one context that might arise: the voter might see a candidate as able to handle a subset of problems due to specific demonstrated skills. This is a global project, comprised of disparate editors, each with different personal goals, but an assumption that all are here to make the encyclopedia better and more complete on its face. Specific case? The fact that the ArbCom exists at all says it has a serious function -- this place has "Ignore All Rules" after all, and is not a natural bureaucracy: if it has such a body at all -- that's a sign that the decision as to who constitutes that body is a sober one. - QTJ 01:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Q2

• There are a lot of policies out there. Some claim that there are too many policies, therefore ignoring rules. Others think that because there are loopholes in policies that are subjected to gaming or abuse, therefore we should extend them. So, what's really going on?
  • Ignoring all rules is the one way a complex, evolving system that finds itself being caught in an absurd loop can "escape" in a local context from being absurd. By this, I mean that policies cannot contemplate all contexts, and taken to absurd lengths, sometimes end up doing exactly the opposite to their intent. Ignoring all rules when one hits an endless, absurd loop, is an "In case of fire, break glass" -- not an excuse. Ignore all rules is the Rubbernecking Point: "Stop! Look and listen, baby, that's my philosophy. That's called rubberneckin', baby, but that's all right with me." ^[5] Stop. Look. Listen. What's going on here -- not over there in post-modern literature or in hypothetical-space -- that makes the rules absurd here. Flex. Flex. Consider. Watch. Lather. Rinse. Repeat if necessary. Gaming? Well, yeah -- that's called iron-necking. Extend them? No. Keep the vision strong and the goal clear, without the cloud of so many policies no one can remember what the Point is. Or as Khayyaam said when he came to understand IAR:

 Some truths we love: the Honest and the Best,
 For they've had their Weight put to the True Test,
   (And those we Married O-Just-Because):
 And disregard the Meaning of the Rest.

As to what absurd is such that IAR is a legitimate plea: "I can't say I know how to define absurdity, but when I see something that has become absurd, I know it when I see it." Yes -- that's a local call. It's like a koan ... you know a good koan when you hear/read one. That's where poetry comes in in life sometimes: the ability to recognize the absurdity -- to know word salad from cogent argument. An example? Neofavism is absurd. Gazonavelism is absurd. -- QTJ 07:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• (Continued from above) How about situations whereby someone decides to activate Halon 1301 before even investigating what the smoke is (fire or no fire), creates a pandemonium with all the Halon, then smashing the fire alarm, raise both hands and claim "There's a fire! No way CO2 fire extinguisher's gonna work!"? What words you have to offer for these kind of people?
  • One thing I've noticed is the sense of urgency that many editors seem to possess. The balance of the universe doesn't hang on whether or not an article is POV or NPOV. While some things need immediate correcting (nastiness inserted into a biography of a living person), some things don't. NPOV-ness is an eventual goal, a journey, not a Lynch Pin of Human Survival. "Process is important" and "Ignore all rules" aren't counter purpose notions -- they work together. Here's a situation where Avoid Harm would come into play, IMO. People on the outside are reading these articles. Changing Up to Down in a frantic ignoring of all rules because "This just in!" ... well, it leads to the public being thrown very drastic shifts that are hotly debated. They're paying for such Boldness. Children writing reports for school are going to be fed one thing this morning and another tonight because someone thought something in urgent need of "correction" to fit his or her latest light. What words to offer? "The road to Hell is paved with Good intentions", perhaps or "Make haste slowly." Remember that while the general public doesn't see the Great Crusades and Drama and fighting for the Greater Good and all that drama that's going on, they sure as shootin' are the one's who are reading the final results of hasty applications of the Big rules. Wikipedia ain't paper -- but it's also not a newswire. Sit on anything that isn't an immediate threat, and let the rest to the benefit of patience. Um, maybe, "Ignore all rules tomorrow." ??? -- QTJ 13:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Q3

• 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?
  • No deletion, and no presumption on my part to have the deep wisdom needed to add an immediate and permanent new one. -- QTJ 01:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • On second thought, I think I would have written as a 4th immutable and permanent policy: "Above all else, Wikipedan -- avoid harm to others." You know, my kids use Wikipedia for schoolwork. Daughter used the Argentina article for a report due this Monday. I checked to make sure the article wasn't a cookie recipe before printing it, but you get the idea. Although not a reliable source overall, Wikipedia has a lot of potential for educating the masses in a neutral descriptive fashion. Lies, poorly thought out "facts", made up junk, BLP slants -- these can harm people. If the goal of producing an all encompassing reservoir of the state of human knowledge is to be reached, surely it is to assist in human enlightenment, not to fill the minds of human beings with bogusitude. While verifiability is as close as one can get to "truth" in a place like this: an underlying mandate to avoid harm to others goes to the spirit of all other rules. (It's really just a less flippant version of " Don't be a dick.") The ArbCom is in place to reduce harm to the project and to the editorial masses, as well as to the disputants in a given case. The codification, in so many words of "Above all else, avoid harm to others" would, at the very least, be a critical rational should one ever need to invoke the deus ex machina of "Ignore all rules." -- QTJ 16:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
    • In short, the Harm principle? - Mailer Diablo 17:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
      • As presented on the provided link, the Harm Principle is a bit too political for my apolitical tastes, but the notion is much the same. See: This interview excerpt -- a closer idea to my idea of harm avoidance. (Refactor note: There was a longer answer in this spot; for space on the present page and to show it in a wider context, I prefer the answer as I gave it in the 2001 interview. -- QTJ 01:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)) reply
      • For a Wikipedia-centric example of how I analyze these things, see User_talk:QTJ/Archive/OnBiographies. I feel that biographies of limited purpose public figures that then go contested by those biographies' subject shift the cost from society and onto the subject of the biography. This is a "feeling" I have, and that link shows how I attempt to analyze and reconcile what I feel about the situation with what I can reason through about it. It's not yet complete, and I haven't made a final call on the analysis yet -- but it's an example of how I reason through such issues. -- QTJ 18:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC) This diff (which I put into the pantry until my analysis is clearer, so as to not stir things up), perhaps gives further insight into how I analyze these things. -- QTJ 18:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Q4

• 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?
  • I see no reason for me to accept either of those. I want neither assigned to me no matter what. Enough have them already for their necessary function to be fulfilled. Let's put it this way: if the necessary protection those provide were to fall such that I had to have those two privileges for Wikipedia to remain safe within the context those privileges anticipate: Rome has already fallen to the Barbarians. See my above comment on a related but differently worded question as to why these are potent and serious privileges. -- QTJ 01:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• One cannot anticipate when barbarians will be at the gates - Oversight was just created this year out of need, and the past year of events was very stormy. The sun may be shiny now, but it does not mean it will not rain tomorrow. I would take from your statement, that you are optimistic about 2007 and beyond?
  • I am not just a computer scientist, but also a poet. I have witnessed some very nasty evil perpetrated against decent people by anonymous forces with malicious agendas. This is the real world. But I have also witnessed much more "help" than I have "harm" over the years. The Internet is, to use a poetic fuzziness: amorphously consistent -- and to date, it has tended towards being a useful tool worldwide. But the price of cohesion in an amorphous medium populated by two kinds of forces (harmful and beneficial) is constant diligence and careful, calculated responses to threats. As long as care and calculation is always used with those tools, newly created tools or not -- I'm optimistic they'll be effective in keeping the rain to a drizzle. Their purpose must never be forgotten, so that they don't become toys. -- QTJ 04:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Q5

• What is integrity, accountability and transparency to you on the ArbCom?
  • Integrity: Above all else, reduce harm (without calling on internal passion and desire to form a decision on how to do it -- these can be corrupted in the moment's heat) to the project and the disputants (both sides). Integrity to the spirit rather than the letter of this overriding goal, throughout.
  • Accountability: Aim to achieve the above in a level-headed, calculated, defensible manner, relying on no prestidigitation, but if a rabbit must be pulled out of magic hat to retain integrity -- be willing to admit it's a magic rabbit and explain the need for such as it pertains to the mandate of the ArbCom. (Not every problem that can arise in future has been anticipated -- be ready to account for controversial decisions that above all else strive to protect the project and reduce harm to all. No "because I say/feel so"s.) Accountability also has application to being willing to gracefully stand down (i.e. resign without a messy scene) in the event one cannot cogently defend a decision in the face of that decision's ultimately being negligent bollocks. Standing behind a bollocks-based decision does neither the project nor the disputants any good whatsoever.
  • Transparency: Covered in above answers to related questions. -- QTJ 01:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
    • One problem with transparency is that sometimes one hypothesizes or explains something in so clear a fashion that it can lead to something akin to WP:BEANS. A good example of this is found in some forms of argumentum ad consequentiam. This also goes to accountability. If one defends so clearly why some decision is made that it provides a road map of loopholes for future potential violators to walk through and do harm -- by exposing future weaknesses, transparency can lead to analysis paralysis for fear of dropping the bean-bomb. Is the goal of providing breadcrumbs towards a decision to allow future violations to walk through open holes? In software development, there is something known as security through obscurity, and it is generally not considered "secure" to be "secure" by being opaque. Here is a great paradox, and too deep an analysis of this aspect of transparency is known to have resulted in and of itself ... analysis paralysis. There's a point where one must stop such logic-loops and get only to the matter at hand, explain the reasoning behind it -- and fall back on the assumption of good faith of the body of editors who could learn how to game the system through such transparency -- but by AGF -- "won't." -- QTJ 19:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply