Is this a joke? Jbeach sup 18:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
1. Considering your low edit count (keeping in mind that you've been here for over a year), how have you specifically demonstrated your knowledge of Wikipedias policies? - Rjd0060 18:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Given some of your responses to questions on this page, I think it is appropriate to mention that the Arbitration Committee and AC hearings should be carried out formally, with a certain (high) level of professionalism. Do you think you will be able to maintain a professional manner when working on cases assigned to the ArbCom, and if so, would it be any different than your current approach to things (for example: noting that your attitude on this election seems to be quite lax and/or careless)? - Rjd0060 20:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, east.718 at 18:35, 11/1/2007
These are generic questions, so apologies if you've answered them elsewhere :)
Thanks for your time. Majorly ( talk) 18:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the question. This is fun. -- EndlessDan 18:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, what is it about you that should engender our confidence? Wikipedia is based on policy and guidelines, and ArbCom is the arbitor of those as relates user conduct. You have not even demonstrated that you could transclude your nomination properly? -- Avi 18:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Based on ‘Request for comment on user conduct’ processes that you have followed closely, how would you rate them in terms of fairness to the accused?
Thanks, Wanderer57 01:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
1: The use of IRC evidence in arbitration cases has flared up in certain cases. A few questions on this:-
2: Can emails and IRC logs, etc., be published on Wikipedia? Why or why not? Should they, or shouldn't they? If they're public domain and pertain to an article, why not. -- EndlessDan 13:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
3: Are Wikipedians, in particular administrators, required to answer to the Committee for their activites outside English Wikipedia (ie. on other Wikimedia Foundation projects, Wikipedia-related websites including The Wikipedia Review, conduct linked to Wikipedia etc.). Should they be? If so, should the Arbitration Committee have intervened in the case of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes, and do you believe this was the correct decision? Yes -- EndlessDan 13:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
4: Theoretical situation: an OTRS respondent blanks a section of an article on a living person, clearly stating that it is an OTRS action based on a semi-credible legal threat in the edit summary. The respondent then protects the article and leaves a note on the talk page asking for the section to be rebuilt, citing OTRS again. An administrator comes along and unprotects it 15mins later and reverts to the old version. A series of administrative and editorial reversions take place, with protection and unprotection (with content reversions) occurring three times in quick succession before both administrators are emergency-desysopped.
The article is then reprotected by a third administrator, and a case brought before the Arbitration Committee. Upon reviewing the OTRS ticket privately on the mailing list, it contains a semi-credible legal threat which is now being dealt with by legal counsel. With regards to the three administrators, what sanctions do you 'support' applying to each of the three? Nothing. They were doing there jobs. Maybe tell em the deal and tell em to be a big more cautious, but it is what it is.-- EndlessDan 13:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
5: What is your (emphasis heavily intended) definition of a wheel war? A moderator on a powertrip. -- EndlessDan 13:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Are there any subject areas that you would recuse yourself from? Thanks! Addhoc 14:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you elaborate on how a vote for you would further a state of straight stone cold chillin on Wikipedia? MastCell Talk 17:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I have just one quick question for you. Why should I vote for you in all seriousness. You seem like a funny person but i think i want someone that's serious about the job in this position?? THanks, Weston 19:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
ok, lol nice references. you got my vote ( Weston 19:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC))
lol, ok fine, you got my vote.
Surf's up? — H 2O — 00:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
What specific ideas do you have that would make ArbCom better for wikipedia? MrMurph101 01:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?-- ragesoss 03:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
How much flavour will you be bringing? Neil ☎ 13:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Can I ask you a serious question? Jd2718 02:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC) (sorry, just had to)
Boxers or briefs? Danny 00:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
A few questions from me. I'm asking all candidates the same thing. I don't think anyone's asked these yet but I they have, feel free to just point me to a previous answer.
Thanks for your time and good luck.
WjB
scribe
23:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
In light of the recent ruling in the French courts re WMF:
The servers for English Wikipedia are hosted in the United States, and the WMF is incorporated in the United States (Florida, specifically). But Wikipedians can access and edit Wikipedia from anywhere in the world (with the possible exceptions of China and Burma, maybe, but that's neither here nor there). Given that, as an ArbCom member, you might be dealing with issues such as possible legal threats against Wikipedia, whose laws does Wikipedia need to follow? What should be done if there is a legitimate concern raised by a Wikipedian that an article may be in violation of US law? What about law of a country other than the US? - Revolving Bugbear 16:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
1. Which constitutes the greater virtue: the possession of honor or the possession of honour?
2. Who won the debate, Curly or Moe?
3. What is ?
1. What is the most valuable trait for an arbitrator? If you had to distill the essence of being an effective arbitrator into one word, what would that word be? ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Also, as a follow-up, if you had to sum up all of Wikipedia in 5 words or less, what would they be? ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
1. What's your favorite beer?
2. Are you a Burner? If so, which years?
3. Bonus points if you can do this: describe the plot of a recent film in terms of at least three Wikipedia arbitration cases.
Cheers! Durova Charge! 04:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
1. Heineken Light at the moment. Or Becks.
2. I was and still am to a degree. 16 - a few months ago. I had to cut back, but that's not to say I don't still partake. Why? You got some? Break that shit out.
3. Extra credit is for nerds.
When I first came on to Wikipedia a year and a half ago the project was more centered around "Just the facts" - articles were more crafted around the who, the what, the when and the where, with some emphasis on the why. Of late, the why has taken on a dominant role in articles on contentious issues, with each side in the political spectrum putting forth their own "notable" mouthpiece to spin what the who, the what, the when and the where means. Do you think this is a positive development? Do you think this is educational, or do you think it makes Wikipedia another platform for the dichotomized public debate--that there are two sides to every issues, and two views--that is prevalent in American society?--David Shankbone 18:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you drink while editing? If so, what specific bevarage(s), how much, and give us a feel for what level of inebriation is your signal to get off Wikipedia. Qermaq ( talk) 01:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you under the age of 18? Thanks This is a Secret account 23:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that your anti-clown platform is just what arbcom needs. I especially enjoyed your answer to Wanderer57's question. So, how would you rate the following things:
Thanks for your time. MookieZ ( talk) 17:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
You're very welcome. Endless Dan 19:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution. However, first and foremost, we are here to work on an encyclopedia. Editing and adding to the project should be everyone's first priority. Can you point out some of your recent mainspace contributions that you are most proud of? AniMate 12:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
So that it won't look like I'm targeting anyone in particular, I'm asking this question of all the candidates. Were you a recipient on the email list used by Durova to distribute her evidence used to wrongfully block !! as detailed in this ArbCom case? Cla68 ( talk) 00:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Your welcome -- EndlessDan 15:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
There is currently a proposal at the Village Pump (Policy) that policies be protected from free editing [1]. Amongst the reasons for this suggestion is to prevent parties from revising policy in a way that favours their point of view, to prevent edit wars on active policies, and to maintain a stable policy base so that users can rest assured that they are staying within policy. Do you believe that this is a good course of action for the encyclopedia? Please respond from your perspective as a prospective member of Arbcom who would be responsible for interpreting policy (but feel free to add your opinion as an editor as well). I will be asking this question of all candidates. Thank you. Risker ( talk) 01:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
1. Can/should Arbcom create wikipedia policy? Or develop a proposed policy for community vote?
2. Do you intend to help create or propose wikipedia policy as an Arbcom member? -- Blue Tie 13:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
How would you vote on this proposed principle: "While anyone may edit Wikipedia without the need to register, that meta-editing activities such as voting in an ArbCom Election are best protected by registering than by sleuthing". SilkTork * SilkyTalk 17:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The questions below refer to the issues of ArbCom's integrity and transparency that needs to be maintained despite the universally accepted view that certain things should remain private.
Arbitrator's private mailing list, known as Arbcom-l and the arbitrators only IRC channel may obviously include information that cannot be made public under any circumstances. Additionally, being aware of the intra-ArbCom communication may give case parties an obvious advantage over their opponents. Who do you think should have access to such a list besides current arbitrators whose community trust has been confirmed in election that took place within the last 3 years? Should it include users that where never voted on? Should it include users who were voted 4, 5 or more years ago? Should users who are parties of the case, comment on the case, present evidence on the case, be allowed to have read access to the list where the case is discussed by the decision makers?
What is your opinion about the parties of the case (or anyone) contacting arbitrators privately about the case? This is not an hypothetical issue and it has been brought up in past cases. The obvious drawback is that if charges are brought secretly, the accused cannot see them and respond. Would you support an amendment of the arbitration policy that would prohibit parties from writing to arbitrators privately in relation to the cases? Giving evidence that has to be private due to its sensitive nature would of course be exempted but should this be the only exception?
Arbitrators who are parties of the case or have an involvement with the case parties that can reasonably be considered to affect their impartiality are expected to recuse. What involvement constitutes the ground for a recusal has traditionally been left to the arbitrators' own discretion, except for obvious cases when arbitrators themselves are case parties. While recused arbitrators, especially the case parties, are allowed to take an active part in cases, collect, present and discuss evidence at the case pages, the same way as ordinary parties, they retain the opportunity to read the thoughts of other arbitrators at Arbcom-L and respond to those privately. It is technically difficult to exclude arbitrators from communication on a case they are involved. But would you support a prohibition for such arbitrators to discuss the case with other arbitrators through the private communication channels, except when submitting evidence whose nature warrants non-publicity?
Policies are written by the community and not by the ArbCom. However, at some point the ArbCom made it clear that the arbitration policy is exceptional in this respect and that the ArbCom intends to control the main policy that governs its own action rather than be governed by the policy written by the community. Would you support returning the control of the ArbCom policy back to the community or should the ArbCom write its policy itself?
As a member of ArbCom, would you place more emphasis on content or behavior? For example, in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds case, there is voluminous discussion on whether SevenofDiamonds is really MONGO, but no discussion on what got MONGO banned in the first place. If SevenofDiamonds=MONGO, then this is a behavioral problem but doesn't have to be a content problem. If SevenofDiamonds edits were reasonable (I have not researched it) would it make a difference? Mrs.EasterBunny ( talk) 00:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
-- Bren202 ( talk) 09:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
-- EndlessDan 16:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
What is your platform???. It is, for me, a required thing for every candidate so that I will know why you are urging me to vote you and whether I will agree with you or not. Everyone of us have different beliefs and goals in Wikipedia. Offended???I'm sorry and contact my talk page. - Pika ten10 ( talk) 14:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
If you've run out of steam halfway down your question page, how will you ever make it to the bottom of those damned ArbCom evidence pages? Fainites barley 10:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
In a somewhat similar line to Risker's question above, what is your position on the following?
-- EndlessDan 16:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a community that produces and maintains a (still-nascent) encyclopaedia. This community has particular social and political structures that define it and that, presumably, affect the character, quality, and depth of its encyclopaedic output. Can you briefly summarise some political and social aspects of the Wikipedia community that you consider important or noteworthy, that perhaps need to be challenged or developed? How does the structure of Wikipedia encourage or inhibit access to decision-making and issues of power/control? Or does any of that matter? And what are the implications for the Arbitration Committee and its members? Pinkville ( talk) 22:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-- EndlessDan 16:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Is this a joke? Jbeach sup 18:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
1. Considering your low edit count (keeping in mind that you've been here for over a year), how have you specifically demonstrated your knowledge of Wikipedias policies? - Rjd0060 18:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Given some of your responses to questions on this page, I think it is appropriate to mention that the Arbitration Committee and AC hearings should be carried out formally, with a certain (high) level of professionalism. Do you think you will be able to maintain a professional manner when working on cases assigned to the ArbCom, and if so, would it be any different than your current approach to things (for example: noting that your attitude on this election seems to be quite lax and/or careless)? - Rjd0060 20:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, east.718 at 18:35, 11/1/2007
These are generic questions, so apologies if you've answered them elsewhere :)
Thanks for your time. Majorly ( talk) 18:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the question. This is fun. -- EndlessDan 18:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, what is it about you that should engender our confidence? Wikipedia is based on policy and guidelines, and ArbCom is the arbitor of those as relates user conduct. You have not even demonstrated that you could transclude your nomination properly? -- Avi 18:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Based on ‘Request for comment on user conduct’ processes that you have followed closely, how would you rate them in terms of fairness to the accused?
Thanks, Wanderer57 01:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
1: The use of IRC evidence in arbitration cases has flared up in certain cases. A few questions on this:-
2: Can emails and IRC logs, etc., be published on Wikipedia? Why or why not? Should they, or shouldn't they? If they're public domain and pertain to an article, why not. -- EndlessDan 13:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
3: Are Wikipedians, in particular administrators, required to answer to the Committee for their activites outside English Wikipedia (ie. on other Wikimedia Foundation projects, Wikipedia-related websites including The Wikipedia Review, conduct linked to Wikipedia etc.). Should they be? If so, should the Arbitration Committee have intervened in the case of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes, and do you believe this was the correct decision? Yes -- EndlessDan 13:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
4: Theoretical situation: an OTRS respondent blanks a section of an article on a living person, clearly stating that it is an OTRS action based on a semi-credible legal threat in the edit summary. The respondent then protects the article and leaves a note on the talk page asking for the section to be rebuilt, citing OTRS again. An administrator comes along and unprotects it 15mins later and reverts to the old version. A series of administrative and editorial reversions take place, with protection and unprotection (with content reversions) occurring three times in quick succession before both administrators are emergency-desysopped.
The article is then reprotected by a third administrator, and a case brought before the Arbitration Committee. Upon reviewing the OTRS ticket privately on the mailing list, it contains a semi-credible legal threat which is now being dealt with by legal counsel. With regards to the three administrators, what sanctions do you 'support' applying to each of the three? Nothing. They were doing there jobs. Maybe tell em the deal and tell em to be a big more cautious, but it is what it is.-- EndlessDan 13:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
5: What is your (emphasis heavily intended) definition of a wheel war? A moderator on a powertrip. -- EndlessDan 13:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Are there any subject areas that you would recuse yourself from? Thanks! Addhoc 14:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you elaborate on how a vote for you would further a state of straight stone cold chillin on Wikipedia? MastCell Talk 17:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I have just one quick question for you. Why should I vote for you in all seriousness. You seem like a funny person but i think i want someone that's serious about the job in this position?? THanks, Weston 19:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
ok, lol nice references. you got my vote ( Weston 19:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC))
lol, ok fine, you got my vote.
Surf's up? — H 2O — 00:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
What specific ideas do you have that would make ArbCom better for wikipedia? MrMurph101 01:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?-- ragesoss 03:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
How much flavour will you be bringing? Neil ☎ 13:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Can I ask you a serious question? Jd2718 02:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC) (sorry, just had to)
Boxers or briefs? Danny 00:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
A few questions from me. I'm asking all candidates the same thing. I don't think anyone's asked these yet but I they have, feel free to just point me to a previous answer.
Thanks for your time and good luck.
WjB
scribe
23:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
In light of the recent ruling in the French courts re WMF:
The servers for English Wikipedia are hosted in the United States, and the WMF is incorporated in the United States (Florida, specifically). But Wikipedians can access and edit Wikipedia from anywhere in the world (with the possible exceptions of China and Burma, maybe, but that's neither here nor there). Given that, as an ArbCom member, you might be dealing with issues such as possible legal threats against Wikipedia, whose laws does Wikipedia need to follow? What should be done if there is a legitimate concern raised by a Wikipedian that an article may be in violation of US law? What about law of a country other than the US? - Revolving Bugbear 16:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
1. Which constitutes the greater virtue: the possession of honor or the possession of honour?
2. Who won the debate, Curly or Moe?
3. What is ?
1. What is the most valuable trait for an arbitrator? If you had to distill the essence of being an effective arbitrator into one word, what would that word be? ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Also, as a follow-up, if you had to sum up all of Wikipedia in 5 words or less, what would they be? ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
1. What's your favorite beer?
2. Are you a Burner? If so, which years?
3. Bonus points if you can do this: describe the plot of a recent film in terms of at least three Wikipedia arbitration cases.
Cheers! Durova Charge! 04:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
1. Heineken Light at the moment. Or Becks.
2. I was and still am to a degree. 16 - a few months ago. I had to cut back, but that's not to say I don't still partake. Why? You got some? Break that shit out.
3. Extra credit is for nerds.
When I first came on to Wikipedia a year and a half ago the project was more centered around "Just the facts" - articles were more crafted around the who, the what, the when and the where, with some emphasis on the why. Of late, the why has taken on a dominant role in articles on contentious issues, with each side in the political spectrum putting forth their own "notable" mouthpiece to spin what the who, the what, the when and the where means. Do you think this is a positive development? Do you think this is educational, or do you think it makes Wikipedia another platform for the dichotomized public debate--that there are two sides to every issues, and two views--that is prevalent in American society?--David Shankbone 18:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you drink while editing? If so, what specific bevarage(s), how much, and give us a feel for what level of inebriation is your signal to get off Wikipedia. Qermaq ( talk) 01:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you under the age of 18? Thanks This is a Secret account 23:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that your anti-clown platform is just what arbcom needs. I especially enjoyed your answer to Wanderer57's question. So, how would you rate the following things:
Thanks for your time. MookieZ ( talk) 17:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
You're very welcome. Endless Dan 19:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution. However, first and foremost, we are here to work on an encyclopedia. Editing and adding to the project should be everyone's first priority. Can you point out some of your recent mainspace contributions that you are most proud of? AniMate 12:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
So that it won't look like I'm targeting anyone in particular, I'm asking this question of all the candidates. Were you a recipient on the email list used by Durova to distribute her evidence used to wrongfully block !! as detailed in this ArbCom case? Cla68 ( talk) 00:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Your welcome -- EndlessDan 15:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
There is currently a proposal at the Village Pump (Policy) that policies be protected from free editing [1]. Amongst the reasons for this suggestion is to prevent parties from revising policy in a way that favours their point of view, to prevent edit wars on active policies, and to maintain a stable policy base so that users can rest assured that they are staying within policy. Do you believe that this is a good course of action for the encyclopedia? Please respond from your perspective as a prospective member of Arbcom who would be responsible for interpreting policy (but feel free to add your opinion as an editor as well). I will be asking this question of all candidates. Thank you. Risker ( talk) 01:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
1. Can/should Arbcom create wikipedia policy? Or develop a proposed policy for community vote?
2. Do you intend to help create or propose wikipedia policy as an Arbcom member? -- Blue Tie 13:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
How would you vote on this proposed principle: "While anyone may edit Wikipedia without the need to register, that meta-editing activities such as voting in an ArbCom Election are best protected by registering than by sleuthing". SilkTork * SilkyTalk 17:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The questions below refer to the issues of ArbCom's integrity and transparency that needs to be maintained despite the universally accepted view that certain things should remain private.
Arbitrator's private mailing list, known as Arbcom-l and the arbitrators only IRC channel may obviously include information that cannot be made public under any circumstances. Additionally, being aware of the intra-ArbCom communication may give case parties an obvious advantage over their opponents. Who do you think should have access to such a list besides current arbitrators whose community trust has been confirmed in election that took place within the last 3 years? Should it include users that where never voted on? Should it include users who were voted 4, 5 or more years ago? Should users who are parties of the case, comment on the case, present evidence on the case, be allowed to have read access to the list where the case is discussed by the decision makers?
What is your opinion about the parties of the case (or anyone) contacting arbitrators privately about the case? This is not an hypothetical issue and it has been brought up in past cases. The obvious drawback is that if charges are brought secretly, the accused cannot see them and respond. Would you support an amendment of the arbitration policy that would prohibit parties from writing to arbitrators privately in relation to the cases? Giving evidence that has to be private due to its sensitive nature would of course be exempted but should this be the only exception?
Arbitrators who are parties of the case or have an involvement with the case parties that can reasonably be considered to affect their impartiality are expected to recuse. What involvement constitutes the ground for a recusal has traditionally been left to the arbitrators' own discretion, except for obvious cases when arbitrators themselves are case parties. While recused arbitrators, especially the case parties, are allowed to take an active part in cases, collect, present and discuss evidence at the case pages, the same way as ordinary parties, they retain the opportunity to read the thoughts of other arbitrators at Arbcom-L and respond to those privately. It is technically difficult to exclude arbitrators from communication on a case they are involved. But would you support a prohibition for such arbitrators to discuss the case with other arbitrators through the private communication channels, except when submitting evidence whose nature warrants non-publicity?
Policies are written by the community and not by the ArbCom. However, at some point the ArbCom made it clear that the arbitration policy is exceptional in this respect and that the ArbCom intends to control the main policy that governs its own action rather than be governed by the policy written by the community. Would you support returning the control of the ArbCom policy back to the community or should the ArbCom write its policy itself?
As a member of ArbCom, would you place more emphasis on content or behavior? For example, in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds case, there is voluminous discussion on whether SevenofDiamonds is really MONGO, but no discussion on what got MONGO banned in the first place. If SevenofDiamonds=MONGO, then this is a behavioral problem but doesn't have to be a content problem. If SevenofDiamonds edits were reasonable (I have not researched it) would it make a difference? Mrs.EasterBunny ( talk) 00:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
-- Bren202 ( talk) 09:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
-- EndlessDan 16:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
What is your platform???. It is, for me, a required thing for every candidate so that I will know why you are urging me to vote you and whether I will agree with you or not. Everyone of us have different beliefs and goals in Wikipedia. Offended???I'm sorry and contact my talk page. - Pika ten10 ( talk) 14:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
If you've run out of steam halfway down your question page, how will you ever make it to the bottom of those damned ArbCom evidence pages? Fainites barley 10:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
In a somewhat similar line to Risker's question above, what is your position on the following?
-- EndlessDan 16:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a community that produces and maintains a (still-nascent) encyclopaedia. This community has particular social and political structures that define it and that, presumably, affect the character, quality, and depth of its encyclopaedic output. Can you briefly summarise some political and social aspects of the Wikipedia community that you consider important or noteworthy, that perhaps need to be challenged or developed? How does the structure of Wikipedia encourage or inhibit access to decision-making and issues of power/control? Or does any of that matter? And what are the implications for the Arbitration Committee and its members? Pinkville ( talk) 22:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-- EndlessDan 16:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)