I myself would like to lend a helping hand to the endevours of the arbcom. Some of my positions? I hate trolls, yet at the same time I believe in criminal rights. I strongly believe in such organizations as WP:AMA. As can be seen from my work at the medcom, I often take out time of my own to reorganize stuff and make sure everyone's doing what they should be. I'd check the RfAr page often, voting on every case I could manage. I see a lot of cases only get the attention of maybe four members. Do we want four people deciding things that can potentially affect the whole project? The more the merrier, much like we should never close AfD's where only two people voted, and RfA's with 4 supports and no other votes. I had told a good friend of mine here I wasn't going to run for arbcom, but after my friends pushed me, I gained interest. I'd like to lend a helping hand. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 02:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Perhaps its worth noting that my proudest contribution is the reactivation of the medcom. Its also worth noting that I pulled out of the race after the events here thinking I didn't have a shot. But friends and otherwise very kind people have nagged me into reentering the race. Direct questions below, or at my talk page. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 19:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Some questions being asked of all the candidates by jguk

Q: How old are you and what do you do? (If student, please state what subjects you are studying.)

A: I am 15, as most people know, which may cost me some votes. I am enrolled in the standard subjects, Math English Science History Gym. I took the S.A.T's at age 12 and got a 1300(/1600) if you want to test my brain...

Q: 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?

A: I'm sure I'll spend a lot of time being one, but I already spend a lot of time on the wiki, it'd be a piece of cake, I have the time as I already spend 5 hours+ a day on the wiki. So unless you need more than 300 hours, I think I can handle it.

Q: 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.

A: As 172 has said, article editing is not my top priority. I have 20 to 30% of my edits there. However I am an exception: I am a mediator, in fact the chair of the medcom. I don't know how I could be a mediator if I couldn't place myself in the shoes of others. That should be the number 1 skill of the arbcom, the ability to place one's self in another's shoes.

Q: Please list out what other Wikipedia usernames you have edited under.

A: none, just Redwolf24.

Question from Shelburne Kismaayo

Q: Why do some people seriously think you are "Willie on Wheels"? If you are not then why did you take their accusations so seriously? If push came to shove, how could you prove to us that you are not Willie on Wheels? Shelburne Kismaayo 23:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply

A: no one really thought I was WoW, they just found my jokes suspicious. Some of them thought it immature and disrupting, which I disagree with, at least for the disrupting part. As for proving I'm not WoW, I can't think of a way to do that, but I think everyone knows I'm not Willy on Wheels, who has been here since 04 I believe, and I have been here since April. Why does this matter? Because I've been docked points for being too new. I could have registered an account a long time ago if I knew wiki existed. Willy is my senior, and I wish I even knew about the wiki back when Willy was around, it would have been fun to block the first one ;-) R e dwolf24 ( talk) 00:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Question from Snowspinner

At fifteen, and with six months experience, you seem, at least superficially, less qualified than many for a seat on the committee. What can you do to counter that impression? Snowspinner 05:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Let's put it this way... its not time spent in days, its time spent in HOURS. If you've been here since 2003, and you spend an hour a week, then people who don't bother to research at all will say you're a better candidate. However there's me, and I spend hours every day on this site. I've read all the policies and most of the pages in the Wikipedia namespace. Anything I have to do as an arbitrator I have been doing as the medcom chair. Analyze evidence? Yup, have to, to make sure the RfM is legit. Know what cases to accept and which to reject? Again, yes. As a mediator (rather than the chair) I have to be able to communicate, remain cool, and put myself in people's shoes. And as for age, that shouldn't matter... Wikipedia is a utopia of all races sexes religions and ages living as equals, and in fact I never had to say my age, but I don't think the community will specifically care about age. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 22:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I believe the term you're looking for is " man hour". — Quarl ^{( talk)} 2006-01-09 22:41 Z

The problem as I see it is that, if elected, you could be artitrating detailed, technical edit disputes amongst experts in their field. You would do this without any knowledge of how the article-editing process works, or of how disputes editing articles usually get resolved. Without that it's easy to perceive very small issues as big, or to miss the whole point of the dispute entirely. Your age means a lack of life experience, which just helps. The older you get the more arguments you see, your impression changes as you see some things dealt with better than others. Your perspective changes from the immediate to the longer term - which is important, as most editors going to ArbCom now are good editors making far more constructive edits to Wikipedia than your edit history shows you have ever done. The other problem your lack of article edits gives is that we cannot see how you would deal with a dispute yourself so have no real idea of how you'd react in given cases, jguk 06:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The other side of the coin regarding the qualifications of some of our young candidates is that the kind of 15-year-olds that spend their free time involving themselves in a worthy community project like Wikipedia demonstrate themselves to be the promising leaders of their generation. I find it highly commendable that they already are seeking to serve in leadership roles. Good for them, and hopefully the Arbcom will include a cross-section that is representative of ALL our editors, including our younger diligent contributors. The young perspective is important too. -- MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Arbcom is overworked and no fun. Please review these discussions: [1] [2] [3] Come up with a short list of suggestions for ways you would endorse for improving the arbitration process. Bonus points for actually managing to create new policy. Dragons flight 08:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Since you're the one person ever to get the damn mediation committee to work right, what plan, if any, do you have to keep it working if you depart it for arbcom? Snowspinner 19:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Being an arbitrator requires a finely tuned bullshit detector. What in your life has prepared you to detect bullshit with ease? Phil Sandifer 21:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Well, I once terminated BigDaddy777's account, he was the master of bullshit, so I believe I have a bullshit detector. I also got rid of Rainbowwarrior1977's account, who later admitted in email he was trolling... so I'm alright. R e dwolf24 ( talk) Attention Washingtonians! 22:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Many policies contradict and overlap with each other, and then WP:IAR makes things even more complicated while making them paradoxically more flexible. When two or more policies apply and conflict, what do you do? karmafist 18:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I don't look at the rule, I look at Why do we have this rule?. If you look at the basis of each rule, you should be able to decide which should take precedence, or if any do for that matter. R e dwolf24 ( talk) Attention Washingtonians! 00:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply

The following questions are for each candidate, and do not specifically target you

Do you hold any strong political or religious opinions (e.g. concerning George Bush, Islam, or on which end you should break a boiled egg)? If so, would you recuse yourself from cases centred on these?

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

Do you view all requests to re-address cases, particularly requests made by those most penalised, as being automatically without merit?

In the case against Yuber, it was decided by the arbitration committee that it is the duty of arbitrators to investigate, and rule on the behaviour of not only one party involved, but all of them. Do you support this decision? [if current arbitrator] Does your visible behaviour on recent cases reflect this decision?

--Victim of signature fascism 16:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I am apolitical, in the manner that I know about politics, but I choose to not associate myself with either of the major parties, or any minor parties. It's ridiculous the only people that can get power are those who have to be completely right or left to get a party's support. America is not Black or White in politics, most of us are grey, but our leaders must be on a polar end. I'm not biased for these reasons.

I would not go with the flow nor head-on contest other arbitrators. The first guy has to read all evidence, and I would read all evidence even if we had 3/0/0 on an issue.

The third question has such an obvious answer it only looks as if it is your personal opinion that arbitrators do this, which I strongly doubt as they're good people. If they do (unlikely, more likely a POV) then we should change that.

All parties can be investigated, and should be. Arbs should be able to investigate too. R e dwolf24 ( talk) Attention Washingtonians! 01:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply

As you probably are already aware, your age may be an issue to a lot of people. I am one of those people.

My particular concern is that, at your age, you are unlikely to have a broad grounding in the general background knowledge of (what passes for?) our culture. This potentially opens the door for others, possibly including fellow arbitrators, to foist their particular agendas upon you.

In light of my concerns about this, which I suspect others may share, how would you deal with conflicts that might be brought before you as an arbitrator on subjects about which you do not have good background knowledge? How would you keep yourself from just relying on the information supplied by another arbitrator or another person, information that might be biased?

Marsden 00:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply

At your age, you are unlikely to have a broad grounding in the general background knowledge of (what passes for?) of Zulu culture. You probably also have little grounding in Eskimo law, or Micronesian coming of age ritual. Do you feel that would be a problem? -- Victim of signature fascism 09:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Hmm, you read my mind -Ril-. R e dwolf24 ( talk) Attention Washingtonians! 05:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply

And for a perhaps more satisfying answer to Marsden - I've said this sooo many times, but I can say it again. I'm a mediator, and the chair of the medcom at that. As the medcom chair, I have leaps and bounds more experience in the dispute resolution process than your average Joe. Arbcom is about dispute resolution, not punitive matters anyway. R e dwolf24 ( talk) Attention Washingtonians! 05:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply

You are one of the busiest Wikipedians on the project, with the Medcom, article editing, community interaction- WP:AFD, WP:AN, nominations at WP:RFA (including myself :) ) etc... Your Request for Bureacratship was denied largely for this reason. Do you believe that you have the time and patience to continue these extensive activities if you become an Arbitrator?-- Sean| Bla ck 04:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Medcom is the only one there that is an actual job, really. AFD is something I do when I have nothing else to do, I only weigh in at AN when I feel it's important, and nominating RfA's is just my way of trying to get all the admins we can. My RfB was denied pretty much solely because of my lack of time on Wiki. R e dwolf24 ( talk) Attention Washingtonians! 05:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Do you support the creation of a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct as I have just now suggested at User talk:Jimbo Wales#A sincere question? - Ted Wilkes 18:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Do you support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights? ( SEWilco 05:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)) reply

1. How do you view the role (and relative importance) of WP:Civility in the process of building a factually accurate encyclopedia? How do you view editors who are normally correct in article namespace, but who may be perceived as rude – including to longtime, popular editors and admins – on Talk pages and the like?
2. Do you have an academic background of any kind, and if so, in what field? How do you handle critiques from your peers and professors (assuming those aren’t one and the same), which may be sharply worded or otherwise skirt the edges of WP:Civility even if they are correct? Considering those professors who have recently had you as a student, what would they tell me if I asked them the same question about you?
3. What are your views on the proposed policy Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct? Whether you think it should be a formal policy or not, do you believe you would generally act in accordance with it? What aspects of it do you think should not be there, or to put it another way, are there any proposals there which you can think of good reasons to ignore on a regular basis? (Please date any replies to this question as the proposal may well change over time.)

PurplePlatypus 07:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply

1. How much of your Wikipedia time do you plan to spend on ArbCom business?

1. If you were elected and had to spend most of your time in ArbCom delibations, which projects would you consider to be the most negatively affected by your absence?

1. To what extent would those projects be affected?

Tito xd^{( ?!? - help us)} 06:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC) reply

(Being asked of all candidates)

Do you believe that regardless of Jimbo Wales' own views on the matter, the community should be able to strip arbitrators of their position under certain circumstances, and if so, what circumstances?

As a corollory:Do you believe, regardless of Jimbo Wales' view on the matter, that a large number of signatories (e.g. 150 requesting censure against 50 supporting the arbitrator) to an RFC against an arbitrator is enough that the arbitrator should be judged as having been rejected by the community in light of their actions, and consequently for them to be forcibly stripped of their post?

wikipedia has a policy of NPOV. Excepting straw men, have you ever introduced a substantial opinion or fact that contradicts your own political or religious viewpoint into an article on a topic of which you have strong opinions, and if you have, how frequently do you do so compared to your other substatial edits to articles?

-- Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 02:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I am asking these questions of all candidates:

1. Do you pledge to abide by the proposed recusal guidelines at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct#Recusal?

2. Are there any parts of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct that you do not agree with? If so, please describe in detail how you would improve them.

3. Will you please pledge to support expanding the number of seats on the Arbitration Committee? If not, how would you propose alleviating the present arbitration backlog?

4. Have you voted over at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Proposed modifications to rules? If not, why not? If so, please summarize your votes.

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. — James S. 06:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

"The Association of Member's Advocates formalises the process too much, and makes the whole issue of dispute resolution akin to a legal system."

What is your response to this, may I ask? Rob Church ^Talk 14:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Do you feel that it is appropriate for editors (especially administrators) to post the "f-word" (during a discussion on an unrelated subject) on another user's talk page?
2. Do you subscribe to WP:IAR?

Thanks for your time. Matt Yeager 07:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. What's your opinion on desysopping as an ArbCom penalty?
2. How closely do you think admins should have to follow policy when using their special powers?

— Simetrical ( talk •  contribs) 02:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply