For me, the most important of the five pillars is the one that states that we are an encyclopaedia. More than any other idea or policy, this is the one that will serve as my guiding principle if I am elected to the committee. However, this maxim is hardly a simple litmus test that can be applied with ease in every case. For example, an abrasive editor, however excellent the articles they write, may cause a net negative effect on our quality by poisoning the atmosphere for other contributors; blindly enforcing the rulebook is a poor mode of operation, but at the same time, ignoring the rulebook too much erodes community support. All members of the Arbitration Committee must be aware of the ripple effect from any decision, or the committee will lose its effectiveness. To sort through all the possible ramifications of any ruling is a task that requires a thoughtful, reasonable, and humble ;) person such as myself.

Some questions being asked of all the candidates by Jguk

What age are you and what do you do? If student, please say what you're studying.

How many hours a month do you think you will need to be a good Arbitrator and are you really willing to put in the time?

I seriously believe that a rate of 1 hour a day (30 hours a month) is sufficient for me to formulate effective opinions. I'm quite willing to put in the time, because of my love for Wikipedia and because I already spend 100 hours a month here anyway.

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.

My standards of neutrality are extremely high. When I embark on a heavy session of editorial review, I scrutinise every adjective and noun to ensure that it leaves judgement to the reader. I can always criticise one party as well as I can another. A few months ago, I helped rein in an edit war at 9/11 conspiracy theories between Yuber and Noitall. Because of my willingness to suggest common ground, both warriors listened to me and eventually calmed down. When I was nominated for adminship, Mel Etitis said that 'he stays cool, calm, but firm in his dealings with other editors, in overheated situations.' My experience as an editor and my penchant for meticulous analysis of all human problems I face will make me an excellent—and humble ;)—Arbitrator.

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

I first created an account on Wikipedia so I could upload an image; this account was Maanandil. Another account I created, solely for doing a test, was Ingoolemo's sockpuppet. As one can see, these two accounts have fewer than five edits between them; both were created in my first few months here.

Form question from Snowspinner (Phil Sandifer)

Being an arbitrator requires a finely tuned bullshit detector. What in your life has prepared you to detect bullshit with ease?

Among those of us who don't spout bullshit, most are able to discern it. There is no such thing as a finely tuned bullshit detector, because things are either bullshit or not. Some people are better than others are at detecting bullshit, but only slightly. I don't think I have much more to offer than the other candidates, but neither do they have much to offer over me.

Form question from karmafist

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?

Because this is quite possibly the best question that anyone has asked, I will not answer it yet. I will provide a detailed response when I have prepared one worthy of the question.

Form questions from -Ril-

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?

I do hold many strong opinions on a number of issues, but I like to think that I don't let my feelings cloud my reasoning. I will gladly recuse myself if I have reason to doubt my objectivity. Even so, I have strong faith in my judgement.

So that we can be sure, will you tell us, roughly, what those issues are?

I'm afraid I must decline. This question is too closely akin to the political litmus tests that attempt to boil important civic decisions down single issues.

Yes, that's right. Its a litmus test to see if you are capable of being neutral or not, and whether any judgements you make, if elected, stand up to scruitiny for neutrality

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

I hate to dodge the question with such a simplistic answer, but a simple one is all that's needed in this case: If every other Arbitrator is wrong, than I will gladly oppose their decisions.

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

Again, I'm sorry to give such a simplistic answer, but it really is all that's necessary: requests to re-address are such a broad category that it's impossible to judge their merit as a whole; rather, merit must be analysed on a case-by-case basis.

The question concerns them all. I.e. do you view all such requests as being automatically without merit?

I think my answer above explained this adequately, but I'm willing to make it simpler: No.

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?

I certainly support the decision. Though the Committee was certainly not set up to be a Holy Inquisition, it lacks an officially established prosecutorial branch, and thus must carry out some such activities itself—within the bounds of certain guidelines, of course. The Committee should only broaden its investigations to users who were heavily involved in the particular dispute, and it should only do so if the dispute is causing major collateral damage.

What about a series of different, and unrelated, disputes involving the same editor and a different 2nd party for each dispute, but presented to the committee as if a single dispute. Here it would appear the one editor was more of an issue than the others, wheras this is infact an illusion caused by selective grouping. Would you still only consider the one editor, or consider both sides for each sub-dispute?

If the defendant has been the main aggressor or offending party in all of those disputes, and their actions in that dispute have caused major disruptions, the Committee should choose to take a prosecutorial role. The prosecution of plaintiffs should be held to an even higher standard. Again, the Committee must take action when serious harm is being done, but it isn't a witch-hunt for nonconformists either.

Question from Marsden

Many people have noted that Wikipedia's original communitarian structure is no longer functioning very well. One editor has suggested that ArbCom is "about getting the trains to run on time," which is a reference to a fulfulled promise of Mussolini's fascist government. Do you agree that Wikipedia needs to become more orderly, and if so, do you think there are any options other than a move toward a more centrally controlled authoritarian system? Do you think that the spirit of cooperation in Wikipedia would survive such a change?

The original communitarian structure was meant to govern the dedicated and well-meaning corps of editors that helped create Wikipedia, not to keep malevolent elements at bay. The problem is not necessarily that Wikipedia has become less orderly, but that the factions of disorderly users has become more prominent. We do not need a more centralised system to deal with this issue; maintaining order is a mean, not an end. Our foremost goal is to ensure a working environment in which editors can write in peace.
Seen from this perspective, it is clear that our cooperative ideals can be maintained even as we labour to keep the trains running. We need only supplement the old system with a stronger police force, not supplant it with a more regimented authority structure.

Question from Ted Wilkes

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?

I will certainly support such a policy if it creates new rules that help uphold the integrity of the Committee. However, I do not consider this likely, because the Committee has so far had few issues with its conduct. As the proposal is written now, it adds nothing further to the Committee's integrity. In fact, it sounds suspicioulsy like a solution in search of a problem. Its 'No Personal Attacks' clause is redundant with our Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks policy, and its section on 'Recusals' and 'Favoritism' would only be necessary if Arbitrators were completely untrustworthy. Worst of all, though, is the 'Transparency' section, which sounds like an attempt to provide wikilawyers an opportunity to overrule cases on procedural grounds. Furthermore, with the exception of the 'No Personal Attacks' clause, all the proposed policies are procedural rules, not codes of conduct. In short: the first three sections are unnecessary, and the last one is downright dangerous.
Addendum: despite my opposition to formalising the proposed code of conduct as policy, I will make my pledge to follow the rules outlined in all sections except for the one dealing with 'Transparency'. (Date of response: December 13.)

I have reviewed the current version of the policy, and I believe that many of its points are well-thought and worth merging with current Arbitration policy. (Date of response: January 4.)

Question from Xoloz

What is, in your opinion, the proper use of WP:IAR? When, if ever, should the rule be invoked to justify administrative action?

Karmafist's question above, when I answer it, will probably answer this adequately. I will explain further here if necessary.

Questions to many candidates by PurplePlatypus

How do you view the role (and relative importance) of WP:Civility in the process of building a factually accurate encyclopedia?

Rules about civility are designed to keep Wikipedia operating smoothly. Some will disagree, but I firmly maintain that incivility has never made a single positive contribution to Wikipedia's functionality. The Civility policy is extremely important because it reinforces the fact that Discussion pages are meant for a reasonable exchange of ideas, not for flame wars.

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?

If an editor chooses to be mildly rude, but submits excellent content, it is not worth wringing our hands over. However, when their incivility reaches the point where it poisons the atmosphere or interferes with the work of other editors, it becomes unacceptable.
Personally, though, I expect all of Wikipedia's best editors, as well as its prominent and popular ones, to hold themselves to especially high standards of decency. This is especially true of those who old office, because I expect them to behave in a manner almost completely beyond reproach. They are the people who set the tone for how other users act, and they must not muck it up.
Please note that this question, and the answer I submitted, reflect on my personal ideals about how editors should conduct themselves, and not on the policies I support.

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?

I have no academic background.

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.)

Please see my reply to Ted Wilke's question above (dated December 13).

SEWilco: Support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights?

Do you support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights?

Wikipedia may not be a micronation, but neither is it a sweatshop. Just as in conventional encyclopaedias, contractual guarantees should allow editors to expect us to uphold certain rights. So in that sense I support the creation of a 'Bill of Rights', but not necesarily in the fashion you intended. Rather, it should be viewed as a contract that ensures a positive relationship between encyclopaedia and encyclopaedist.
However, I believe that the whole body of Wikipedia policy can serve as a contract as easily as an official 'Bill of Rights' can. Consequently, I oppose ratifying the current 'User prerogatives' as official policy, because it would be redundant with other policies that are currently working satisfactorily. However, it could eventually be a useful help page with some revision.
Addendum: the first prerogative—prohibiting discrimination—is worth further investigation as a policy of its own.

How about the proposed Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct? HK

Please see my reply to Ted Wilke's question above (dated December 13).

Questions being asked by Titoxd to all candidates

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

As noted above, I expect to spend up to an hour a day, or however long I need to keep up with the load. I cannot reasonably estimate the fraction of my time this will occupy, because my Wikipedia activity tends to be rather erratic.

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?

I have done a fair amount of work to deal with unsources images and the Candidates for Speedy Deletion, so those will suffer slightly from my absence. However, the most impacted will be WikiProject Aircraft.

To what extent would those projects be affected?

In the case of the first two, my abscence will only mean a slight increase in the workload on other users. However, WikiProject Aircraft will receive a pretty big blow. I'm one of its most active editors, working both to upgrade and to standardise content. I also consider myself one of the Project's leaders. I hope I won't be forced away from it, but I know that I can do even more for Wikipedia on the Arbitration Committee.

Neutrality question and Censuring questions from -Ril-

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?

To be completely honest, I don't believe that I have ever made any substantial edits to any articles on which I have a strong viewpoint.

Recusal, Code of Conduct, Expansion from Nrcprm2026 (James S.)

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

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.

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?

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.

User:Improv, who is also a candidate for the arbitration committee, has placed the following statement on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy):

I am concerned about templates surviving AfD that appear to contrast with established policy. In particular, I feel that these templates are Poisoning the well when it comes for how we treat our fellow wikipedians. There are circumstances where knowing too much about one's neighbours politicises how one deals with them. This is, to an extent, unavoidable in society, but wearing signs of hate as badges on our shoulders takes what is a small problem that we can usually deal with into the realm of being damaging to the community. Already, there have been signs of people refusing to help each other because they are on different ends of a political spectrum -- this seems likely to get worse if this trend continues. Some people cry that this is an attack on their first amendment rights (if they're American, anyhow), but that doesn't apply here because Wikipedia is not the U.S. government -- it is a community that has always self-regulated, and more importantly it is an encyclopedia with a goal of producing encyclopedic content. We have a tradition of respecting a certain amount of autonomy on userpages, but never absolute autonomy. We might imagine, for example, templates with little swastikas saying "this user hates jews". I am not saying that such a thing would be morally equivalent to this template against scientology, but rather that we should aim to minimise that aspect of ourselves, at least on Wikipedia, so we can make a better encyclopedia. The spirit of NPOV does not mean that we cannot have strong views and still be wikipedians, but rather that we should not wear signs of our views like badges, strive not to have our views be immediately obvious in what we edit and how we argue, and fully express ourselves in other places (Myspace? Personal webpage?) where it is more appropriate and less divisive. [1]

I am inviting all candidates, including Improv, to expand on this theme on their questions pages. Do you agree that this is a cause for concern as we move into 2006? How do you see the role of the arbitration committee in interpreting the interpretation of Wikipedia policy in the light of this concern? -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 20:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply