Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for Can't sleep, clown will eat me

Hello everyone. It has been an honor to work closely with Wikipedia for over a year now, and I look forward to this opportunity to serve on this committee. In addition to contributing as an administrator on the English Wikipedia, I also assist with the unblock-en-l mailing list and OTRS queries as well. I cannot say with any certainty how many edits I've accrued; the edit counters tend to crash after passing the 50,000 mark. ;-)

Simply put, I will always try my best to carefully consider all sides of an arbitration case, to be as fair as possible, and do what is best for the continued existence of our encyclopedia. Thanks for your time, I look forward to any questions you may have. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The

Scientific point of view proposal was rejected and is largely obviated by our NPOV policy. In the instances where it would apply, our neutral point of view policy is more inclusive, and allows us to present mainstream scientific consensus

along with the differing minority viewpoints as well without giving those viewpoints any undue weight. Our editors are sophisticated enough that if there is a divide amongst respected scientists on a specific theory, we say so, and if a minority belief is dismissed by the scientific community at large, we say that too.

Thanks for running in the election. Hope these questions are an easy way to start.

These are copies of questions initially asked by John Reid.

1. Who are you?

   I'm a person who enjoys contributing to Wikipedia.

2. Are you 13? Are you 18?

   Not any more I'm afraid.

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

   The Arbitration Committee is for dealing with user conduct disputes, and should not be a replacement for communited-based policy development.

Warning: Most of these are intended to be tough. Answering them properly will be hard. I don't expect anyone to actually withdraw themselves from nomination rather than answer these, but I do expect at least some to seriously think about it!

The one consolation is that your competitors for the positions will be asked them too. Notice that there are about one thousand admins, and about a dozen arbcom members, so the process to become an arbcom member may be expected to be one hundred times harder. (Bonus question - do you think I hit that difficulty standard?) :-)

1. A current Arbcom case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy is concerned with the decision of whether or not a proposed policy has consensus or not, and therefore whether or not it should be a policy/guideline. Whether or not the Arbcom has or should have the power of making this decision is hotly disputed. Does Arbcom have this power? Should it have this power? Why or why not?

   While I don't disagree with any of the findings in this case, I do not believe that policy is something that the Arbitration Committee should be deciding upon (and they aren't). Wikipedia is bound by United States law, which includes the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, and I personally would prefer that any type of child protection based policy be authored and handed down at the foundation level.

2. Similarly, a recently closed Arbcom case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano barely dodged the possibly similar issue of whether the Arbcom can, or should, determine whether Bureaucrats properly made someone an administrator. (Discussed, for example, here). The current arbcom dodged the question (didn't reach agreement one way or the other, and ended up leaving it alone by omission), but you don't get to. :-) Does the arbcom have this power? Should it?

   Generally speaking, yes, I believe that the Arbitration Committee has the ability to review actions by all contributors, including bureaucrats, and at the same time reserves the right to decline to review those actions.

3. Various arbcom decisions (can't find a link right now - bonus points for finding a link to an arbcom decision saying this!) have taken into account a user's service to the Wikipedia. Several times they have written that an otherwise good user that has a rare instance of misbehaviour can be treated differently than a user whose similar misbehaviour is their main or sole contribution to the Wikipedia. Do you agree or not, and why?

   There is a notable difference between one who has a history of positive work with the project and makes an isolated outburst versus another who has a pattern of negative behavior, and naturally that should be taken into consideration during any decision making process.

4. If you agree with the above point, which service to the encyclopedia is more valuable - administration, or writing very good articles? For example, what happens when two editors, an administrator and a good article writer, come into conflict and/or commit a similar infraction - how should they be treated? Note that there are relatively the same number of current administrators and featured articles on the Wikipedia - about 1000 - however, while relatively few administrators have been de-adminned, many former featured articles have been de-featured, so there have been noticeably more featured articles written than administrators made. This is a really tough one to answer without offending at least one important group of people, and I will understand if you weasel your way out of answering it, but it was one of the issues brought up in the recent Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano, so you can imagine it may come up again.

   It isn't a question of who is more valuable than the other, we are all volunteers who bring a unique value to the project. Each person should be treated fairly and evaluated on their own merits.

5. While some Arbcom decisions pass unanimously, many pass with some disagreement. I don't know of any Arbcom member who hasn't been in the minority on some decisions. Find an Arbcom decision that passed, was actually made that you disagree with. Link to it, then explain why you disagree. (If you don't have time or inclination to do the research to find one - are you sure you will have time or inclination to do the research when elected? If you can't find any passed decisions you disagree with, realize you are leaving yourself open to accusations of running as a rubber stamp candidate, one who doesn't have any opinions that might disagree with anyone.)

   There isn't anything in particular that stands out in my mind that I disagree with, but in general I prefer probationary periods be used in lieu of retoactively applying short, punitive short blocks, due to the length of time it can take to decide a case; if the terms of probation are violated, blocks can be issued incrementally afterwards, and if the disruption is particularly egregious then I have no problem with long term blocking as a result.

6. It has been noted that the diligent User:Fred Bauder writes most of the initial Arbcom decisions -- especially principles, and findings of fact, but even a fair number of the remedies. (Then a fair number get opposed, and refined or don't pass, but he does do most of the initial work.) Do you believe this is: right; neither right nor wrong but acceptable; or wrong? When you get elected, what do you plan to do about it?

   Seeing as he is a retired attorney, I believe that Fred Bauder is well suited as a writer, but at the same time I don't think he would mind some relief in this role. If elected, I plan to assist the Arbitration Committee in any way possible, and that includes the drafting of these decisions.

7. For those who are administrators only - how do you feel about non-administrators on the arbcom? Note that while "sure, let them on if they get elected" is an easy answer, there are issues with not having the ability to view deleted articles, and either not earning the community trust enough to become an admin, or not wanting the commensurate duties. Or do you believe that non-administrators are a group that need representation on the arbcom? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   True enough, non-administrators will face challenges such as not being able to immediately review deleted articles, but this can be remedied through the ArbCom mailing list if need be.

In one sentence, what will you bring to the Arbitration Committee? Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 23:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will bring a fair and open mind, as one who has the time, energy, and dedication necessary to fulfill what has the possibility to be a demanding role.

Thank you for volunteering to take on this task, and for putting yourself through having to answer these questions. For what it's worth, these particular questions are going to all the candidates.

1. I've noticed that a total of thirteen people have resigned from the committee, and that there is currently one vacancy open in one of the tranches. Having members of the committee resign sometime during their term could create problems somewhere down the road. What do you think are the odds that you yourself might consider resigning during the course of your term, and what if any circumstances can you envision that might cause you to resign? Also, do you think that possibly negative feelings from others arising as a result of a decision you made could ever be likely to be cause for your own resignation?

Short of a natural disaster, family emergency, or some other kind of tragedy, I can't really envision that happening.

2. There may well arise cases where a dispute based on the inclusion of information whose accuracy is currently a point of seemingly reasonable controversy, possibly even bitter controversy, in that field of study. Should you encounter a case dealing with such information, and few if any of your colleagues on the committee were knowledgeable enough in the field for them to be people whose judgement in this matter could be completely relied upon, how do you think you would handle it?

If I understand your question correctly, this would be a content matter, and should be sufficiently addressed by our

WP:NPOV

policies, and these policies would be reinforced in the principles section of an arbitration case if it was warranted to do so.

Hello, the ArbCom elections are coming up very soon and I was wondering if you would give your public assurance not to vote or comment on other candidates. I think this will help keep friction to a minimum. Imagine how ugly it would be if two people who vehemently publicly attacked and opposed each other both ended up sitting on the ArbCom together. I think, in the best interests of decorum, these kind of conflict of interest issues should be avoided. Do you agree? --Cyde Weys 20:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My decision to abstain from voting is a personal one, but I would not discourage nor encourage any other candidates from participating in the voting process if they so desired.

1. Based on your background, any prior conflicts, etc., are there any areas or topics where you anticipate receiving requests for recusal, or where you might consider self-recusal? If so, what are those areas and how would you decide whether to recuse? Thanks, TheronJ 18:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I were somehow personally involved in a dispute brought before the Arbitration Committee I would most certainly recuse, but there are no topics or conflicts that come to mind that I anticipate the need to take such action.

My questions are short, but tricky.

1. There have been a number of contentious AfD's that have ended up as contentious DRV's. A number of these have lead to ill will between Wikipedians, edit wars, etc. Do you think ArbCom should ever take any actions in such contentious XfD/DRV (such as the Esperanza MfD) when the debate is clearly damaging Wikipedia's community?

2. Assume there are two editors, both in good standing, both with over 5,000 edits, both who have contributed to Wikipedia heavily, who get into a dispute and edit war over an article. Do you see the ArbCom's job to fix the problem or remove an editor who is causing the problem? If the latter, would you ban one or both editors frome editing the article?

3. If there was one policy you could rewrite, clarify, or add to, which would it be, and why?

--Elaragirl^Talk|Count 17:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. As concisely as possible, please explain how you would continue with your stated commitment to the ArbCom process as an ordinary editor, should you NOT be "elected". Please be as concise as possible, preferably in 100 words or less.

My reasons for this question are three-fold.

First, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It's a powerful statement that has many meanings. It means that, among other things, any user has the power to do pretty much anything, should they wish it. I submit my own user contributions as evidence.

Second, one thing that's a constant is Wikipedia's GNU License. As an online-encyclopedia, the history of everything, every edit, every comment, every misdeed, every injury, and every achievement are readily available to anyone who wish to look at it. All they need is a computer, frankly, and they can dig away.

The third is merely a perception. Power is great, but when the entire history of your actions are utterly transparent, and anyone can do virtually anything on their first day here, it's really just a big illusion. I further submit that the more "power" you think you have, the more you have to "lose". You also have to more "work" and have less "fun".

2. What do you think about this "election"? What do you think about your fellow "candidates"? What do you think about "campaign banners" on an online, open-source encyclopedia? What do you think about your own "campaign"? Please answer as concisely as possible, preferably in 100 words or less. For reference, please see this: [WP:Wikipedia is not a Democracy]]?

3. What, specifically have you done wrong in the past as an editor, community member, administrator, and human being trying to create a world-wide online open source encyclopedia on Wikipedia? For reference, see my own user contributions. Please be as concise as possible, preferably in 100 words or less.

4. Do you apologize for your actions, and who are you apologising to, specifically? Please be as concise as possible, preferably in 100 words or less.

5. Hypothetically, how would you deal with an explosion of editors and users behaving very badly because Wikipedia has just aquired a bigger "stick". For reference please see

6. What, exactly do you want do on Wikipedia? Why did you come here, and why did you stay for more than a minute? What's fun for you here? What makes you happy here? Please be as concise as possible, preferably in 100 words or less.

Would you kindly evaluate and/or comment article 911. As a reader do you find that piece factual and accurate? As an editor do you find it satisfying (with regards to our fundamental Wiki policies and guidelines)? As future arbitrator how do you feel about status quo imposed on that and similar "ever burning" editorials? Lovelight 10:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify what you mean by "status quo imposed on that and similar "ever burning" editorials"? The article looks to be comprehensively written and well-sourced, and I am confident that it will only improve over time.

I've looked at your contributions, and the most recent thousand are anti-vandal reverts. While this is laudable, it doesn't tell me much about your approach to arbitration of disputes. Can you point to neutrality or accuracy disputes you have been involved in or resolved, and/or articles to which you have contributed? BillMasen 14:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking this; I acknowledge that my contributions are easily overshadowed by the time I've invested removing vandalism and libel from Wikipedia, for better or for worse. My 1,000 most recent contributions should always show a healthy combination of anti-vandalism, welcoming newly registered and "anonymous" users, article categorization, removal of libel and personal attacks, discussing copyvio concerns, closure of AFD debates, formatting, style, and spelling corrections, replies on various administrative noticeboards, et cetera. It would really be useful to have a &hideminor option for the Special:Contributions tool à la that of Special:Recentchanges, as this would help to demonstrate some of the other non-"minor" work that we all do around here. I think I'll ask the folks on Bugzilla if such a feature is doable, actually.

Cassie is one example of how I've dealt with accuracy concerns in the past; fellow editor B33R contacted me on my talk page for advice, as the entire article was unsourced and he was having difficulty locating cite-worthy sources. Within half an hour, the article was stubbed and rebuilt from reliable sources. [1] Another is at Talk:Sandwich, Kent, which is still pending a response. Another recent example may be found at Talk:Jhonen Vasquez. If content cannot be reliably sourced, we should not be hosting it.

What is your feeling concerning the potential vote to desysop User:MONGO? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While MONGO has made some mistakes, and would undoubtedly benefit from making a greater effort to assume the good faith of others, the evidence provided at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan does not convince me that removal of sysop privileges is necessarily the best solution.