Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for Harvestman

1. 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 01:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

1. 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.

2. 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?

3. It is expected that some successful candidates will receive

) in a timely manner should you be granted either or both of them?

4. What is integrity, accountability and transparency to you on the ArbCom?

5. Humour, a tradition of Wikipedian culture, has seen through several controversies in recent history. This is including but not limited to

userboxes

... Do you think that they are all just harmless fun, or that they are all nonsense that must go?

Do you have any dispute resolution experience in any of the following areas: Wikipedia:Mediation Committee, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal, Wikipedia:Third opinion, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, or Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates? If not successful with the Arbitration Committee, will you seek a position with the Mediation Committee? ·maclean 07:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm glad to receive your questions. I shall answer thoroughly and expect that the process won't seem too long to you all. Welcome and go on asking! Harvestman : -- DLL ^{.. T} 07:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I shall not pretend that I’m a newcomer, but some issues I missed. I’ve been involved in Afd because such cases spring at random pages ; I ignored the Mediation and Arbitration methods here until I saw a post the day before. I’ll state my interest in ArbCom at the end.

Oversight and Checkuser permissions

This is quite normal. The umpire has rights to enforce the rules. I’ve been a boy scout and I liked it : just play the game. Now a probation period for newly appointed ones, why not ?

Editors making wise, informed decisions when they vote

They shall if and when they perceive that our organisation needs an ArbCom. The newcomer ignores everything and information is too much sparse, this is my own experience. Those wo encountered real problems know that they need strong support.

Make or abolish one policy

As an IT consultant, my job includes software testing. I proposed a six months ban on new policies (

, Oct. 27): you only can verify what’s clearly stated ; too much policies equals too much mistakes from everyone and advantages for trolls.

Requests for checkuser

You learn quick when you begin. You make errors and learn more. No living animal shall be sacrificed in the process.

Integrity, accountability and transparency

I’m able to state it when I perceive a lack of transparency in the process I’m involved in. When decisions are enforced, their consequences are plainly visible, so just tell me if there’s a problem.

Dispute resolution experience

None in the mediation area here ; some at my job where people love to push their ideas and forget the common goal.

Position with the Mediation Committee

Why not. When people accept a mediation, most of the job is done, when they are compelled to it, you’ll soon find an ArbCom case.

My interest as an arbitrator

This is just part of the process. We build an encyclopedia and the pages need to be clean. I’m a knowledge seeker and I like it. -- DLL ^{.. T} 23:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Q: 1. Who are you?

A:

Q: 2. Are you 13? Are you 18?

A:

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

A:

Hello, John Reid ! As you did not read my statement, and did write in bold, I won’t answer 1 & 2.

Huh?

I stated that I'm a french IT consultant and since long slightly over those ages you are afraid of. --20:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Other matter outside user conduct

No. Policies are made by people. Disputes about policies are now seen by the ArbCom : what else ? But I'll say more below.

Harmless fun - that must go ... on

I’m glad to meet that question, Diablo. Look what happens here vs. what happened when the first encyclopedia was published. Did not Diderot and d’Alembert ... have fun ... allow their anti power, anti clerical, pro science and freedom POV ? But this is not the point here in WP.

I am sure that WP is childlike, not only young, but dedicated to : "TV series, music, films, sports, ..." every kind of fandom for which a subtler touch should be largely enough in a plain good old ‘pedia ?

I shall stick to the point "no original research, no POV" as long as I stay here. But people need first to express themselves even when they believe that they are talking serious subjects belonging a ‘pedia. Where do they go : Village pump straight, discussing policies ; and Ref Desk - which I tried also : there you have plenty of original research and fun.

The concerns about humour are true. I think that humour is necessary. Children learn better where they play and laugh. Teaching, learning to teach, delivering knowledge to the world won’t stop those needs. As usual, too much implies regulation.

Coppa

I learned this, John Read, on a page that you recommended :"The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) applies to commercial sites collecting personal information from children under 13 years of age." Why did lawyers think about that one and elected guys choose to enforce it : one could imagine that it is to protect commercial sites from complaints, while telling that children are better protected. I’m not far because I saw such laws that tell one thing only.

So does WP need to enforce a similar, but inner law ? It should be more to protect itself against lawyers, and I hope that the foundation knows better about that. I’m not telling here that there may not be problems for children ; I expect that their parents and the state do their job.

Yes, WP looks like real life and children play on the Internet as much as they can. WP is also a mirror of our visions of ourselves, our world, our desires.

The problem arises when WP gains visibility : imprudent children’s visibility grows too. Is this your concern ? I wonder what do academics say about that and I think that it would be the first step. Cite sources, statistics. Go ahead and tell, then any proposition should be welcome. Did nobody tell you that ?

If Wpians create too much policies, a considerable amount of energy shall be wasted trying to enforce them. And this shall bring more trolls and wars. Something other than an ArbCom shall be created to rule about policies conflicts and so on : that’s a current process amongst communities. As a Wpian, I’m for less policies and stricter rules ; as an ArbCom candidate, I make a prayer. -- DLL ^{.. T} 20:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Common knowledge

Hi! All your rhetorical and standard questions give me an occasion to expose what I understood about WP goals. I am not always 100% okay but as long as I’m here I’ll stick to them.

"Write what you know and what you want but without your own point of view." - But scientific views are a point of view by themselves ?

There are no rules : there is no truth. But "Cite sources". Scientific man number one writes this there. Scientific man number two writes another thing elsewhere. Most of times they are in perfect scientific harmony. Sciman three writes quite another thing : all that belongs here in WP, together with academic or journalist critique. Now bad considered man four tells things that most of the community - or law - supports less. This belongs in its own place here, but does not need to be spread everywhere.

One can imagine a world where Einstein’s views and discoveries have withered, and La Rouche’s ones made the whole context for our lives. Why not ? But this is definitely not the case in the real world ; and WP is not a place for persuasion, rather for flat observations of the state of our commonly accepted knowledge. It is a really poor point of view, but it is honest and helps others to start and refine theirs.

Historians have their word to : but who makes history ? Only time, not any government’s, less any saddened man’s POV. One of the hardest goals of WP is trying to reflect the world as it changes. Wars exist in the real world, they have to stop first thing here. How to deal with that ? A bad considered government or organization, even a terrorist one, sees its world that way. It must be told here ; with citations ; and surrounded by other points of view, with citations ; and only once, not in every page related by any feeble link.

Is it too hard to tell that the Adriatic coast is beloved for its scenery and fishing possibilities without resorting to Balkan wars ?

Back to basics

I hate the average science discourse because it uses perfectly its own jargon (the same thing for WP jargon, by the way) and makes it perfectly unscrutinizable by the average reader. There is a difference between what I learned, discovered and use in mathematics and what’s written now - even here. Ask the editors some clearliness : - No sir, its perfectly clear as it is ; it is standard and approved by the community.

This is just an example (our addition article is not so bad) where, without resorting to simple english, I’d like to see levels defined and used here :

• This page or section is talking about sums and differences and plain man recipes to catch them, their meaning and common use.
• That page or section discusses sums and differences in the higher plane which is useful for maths seekers - people that I do respect.

There is no POV in advanced knowledge, other than the true and unbiased POV of the alpinist "Oh! I see the Eiffel tower from there!" where we only see billboards and streets and cars. I’d say that both belong here, as it is good to know that, with practise and time, you may succeed in seeing something else than trivial perspectives.

Science is not everything

Science is not everything ... There are other fields of human knowledge. Science and religion sometimes meet to conclude that their domains differ.

Science derived towards the quest for reproducible results. History (of human society, of man, of living cells) is not so easily reproducible, and still follows laws that we are able to discover.

The presents that religion brought to humanity have kept some value. There are no proofs and no reproducible results either. There is life growing and dying, which science won’t try to explain. What to say about that in an encyclopedia without resorting to dogma or losing friends ? Just cite sources. Some great thinkers did say or write very interesting things about questions that existed long time ago and shall exist, and be viewed differently, in ten or a thousand years. A good question is by itself more interesting that a trivial, today's fashioned answer.

Now when the answer is "just kill your enemies", we won’t have that in our policies and the article telling about that shall be properly guarded. -- DLL ^{.. T} 11:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 thriteen 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?

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?

Resigning during the course

Too much work could make me weaken ; expressions of contempt or hate from others, I wish not. I’m afraid that current procedures allow empowered members to discharge their temper too much frequently : This does not belong here.

Relying upon colleagues

I do rely on colleagues in the real life. That doesn’t mean that I do not take a look at how (and when) the job is done.

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?
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?
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?
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.
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.)
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?
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) 14:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting children's privacy

Hello AnonEMouse. See my previous section (following John Reid's) on this page : ArbCom should not define policies, however, for now they are the ones to deal with disputes about them ... Three powers are needed and the task of making or reviewing policies is a very tough one.

Giano case

I loved this one : "it seems unlikely to me that some of the parties accept the jurisdiction of the Committee", this one : "substantial evidence that violations will not be repeated" and that one too : “Criticism of administrative, arbitration, and bureaucratic decisions is welcome." Besides that, the case shows clearly that when empowered people lose their temper, nothing good comes.

Each question should be treated at its own level. If it is not, a higher jurisdiction is necessary and welcome. Remember, it took time to the Scotus to be recognized as a valid partner in the US democracy.

Rare instance of misbehaviour

We’re talking about protecting the contents and the spirit of WP. The measures taken frequently allow someone to come back after he had time to think : they never ensure a better behaviour afterwards. The risks are lower indeed with proofs of good behaviour before.

Which service is more valuable - administration, or good articles

Conflicts should be treated with regards primarily to content that is widely broadcast to a public that wants to find information and loves WP. The intents, bad conduct proofs and history of parties are elements for a judgement and a penalty. The guy who brings more valuable data to one of our articles is welcome, his conduct when opposed might be childish and disapproved, our love of pure justice must not induce us to bite him.

Each one brings help with his capacities. Some bring useful and raw information, some refine it, some reject it by judging its value ... and administration is really necessary as WP is so huge today : it should be enriched, but respecting a separation of powers.

Disagreement with an Arbcom decision

Do you remember Louis Epstein … who was asked to put spaces after punctuation, as is normal. His response was “By now you should realize that NOT typing spaces after punctuation marks is a habit I have had for decades,and stick to fiercely."

The Arbcom decision states that "Louis Epstein … may be briefly blocked if he neglects use of conventional punctuation (gradations of penalties follow.)

The remedies of this decision are not to be enforced so long as Babajobu is fixing Louis Epstein's punctuation habits as per his voluntary offer [11]. If the Arbitration Committee later, through a request for clarification, decides that this is no longer being done, the remedies in this decision will come into full effect, unless an approved arrangement has been made for another user to clean up after Louis Epstein." [1]

Do not laugh, as the devil is in the mean things. This is enforcing slavery for the benefit of an expert, who is welcome but won't when coming with his own rules. I oppose such methods. I’d rather have that eminent, conferences-giving man out.

Postface - slavery is a bit hard. People lose time for L.E. : they correct what he could do himself, they verify his conduct : this is ok for a child under 10. -- DLL ^{.. T} 16:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Bauder

A retired lawyer has time and interest enough : he should not be alone for the chores ; less alone for any decisions, and I expect it is never the case. Arbitrators may learn some elements of procedure too : the best procedures respect a man, guilty or not.

Non-administrators on the Arbcom

I am not an admin.

If elected to the Arbitration Committee will you continue active editing? Will you not lose interest in contributing to articles. Will you be available to any users who seek your help or advice.

--Dakota 13:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dakota

As you are only the second person that didn't read my too long statement, I'll answer and say what I meant : I may edit less stuff. Also, all carpenters are not poets. That should be my way of helping.-- DLL ^{.. T} 16:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open-mindedness and the ability to revise one's own position in response to new evidence seems to me to be an important factor in considering ArbCom cases. Can you please provide an example of a situation where your initial judgement of a situation turned out to be wrong, and show how you dealt with it? Guy (Help!) 14:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JzG. Children sometimes consider that their parents did wrong; soon, or long after, they see that they did what they could. As I experienced it, I only hope it won't take too long to change my mind if it happens in an ArbCom case. -- DLL ^{.. T} 17:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking these questions all applicants:

1) How would you handle a situation where an error of judgment has occured, especially if evidence is provided to confirm that the position is incorrect?

2) If a decision of yours, while technically a correct one, would knowingly be unpopular en masse, how would you present your decision?

3) Place each of these policies/guidelines listed in order of precedence (to you) starting with highest priority. There is really no right or wrong answer. I'm interested in seeing what you would normally look at first when assessing an article.

Error of judgment

I have to learn and what is better than mistakes ? Now when we are many to make errors, it may be because we were caught by propaganda. Help! Help us to realize - and this is a political question - that our acts are contrary to the common goal. Light must come from a dispassionate discussion. Thank you, Torinir, for your frank questions.

Unpopular decision

Law is unpopular. People begin to love it when it saves them from calamities.

There are no rules

This is the policy. Same as ‘Les hommes naissent et demeurent libres et égaux en droit'. Unless you don’t understand that, you’re dead and any free encyclopedia also. Now freedom does not mean trampling other’s rights or true expectations.

Fewer rules should be enough, but I don’t have to change that.

• What is Wikipedia : an encyclopedia; so my preference goes to reliable published sources, which includes verifiabilty, no original research and neutral point of view. It is really frustrating when the bit of information that you brought here with pride is judged and dismissed : but it may be correct to stop taking it as a personal offense and think again.
• A free encyclopedia, stuck to the greater respect for copyright and copyleft – both have to live.
• As for notability, we’re deadly wounded with fandom and lists of improbable towns known only by their inhabitants and the census bureau (I hope you don’t love TV series, neither live in one of those towns.) -- DLL ^{.. T} 17:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Content dispute on Article X. Editor A ignites war with rude comment on User talk:B. New editor B sees this and reacts but A sneaky reverts himself before anybody else notices the instigation. Rude comments on Talk:X. Rude comments between Editors A and B on each other's talk. Admin C blocks A and B for a day. 12 hours later, Admin D sees the sneaky revert and unblocks B and, for good measure, extends A's block to 2 days. Admin C sees the unblock, doesn't understand/agree with the block sum, reblocks B and extends his block to match A's. He comments in good faith on User talk:D.

Admin D sees the reblock and reads the comment that reveals C's ignorance, reunblocks B, and leaves message on AN, explaining the sneaky revert. C reblocks again, leaves message on User talk:D complaining of 0WW violation. D replies on User talk:C, explains the sneaky revert, and unblocks both parties. Admin E (up to now uninvolved, stay with me here) comes to User talk:B to follow up on unrelated Article Y discussion; sees B complaining mightily but incoherently about being blocked. E reads through talk on X, A, and B and sees a lot of rudeness, blocks both editors for a day.

Editors M, N, P, and Q, friends or partisans of A and B, object loudly on talk to every turn of events; C blocks some of them, D blocks others. Meanwhile, C and D are trading insults on talk and Admin F finally steps in and blocks them for a week. Admin G unblocks everybody. Admin H discusses the situation offwiki with Admins J and K; H posts to AN with the stated intent to block all involved parties for 24 hours for violations of CIVIL and NPA. J and K endorse; H implements the blocks, which expire a day later. The case winds up at ArbCom.

I've already written my answer in detail, encrypted it, and uploaded it to a userpage. I'll give you a week to think about this case before revealing my solutions. 08:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

We'll have a nice week! -- DLL ^{.. T} 20:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry that Torinir didn't ask this lovely question directly to all candidates. For you, John Read, I'll give a hint : It is hypothetical and cranky. You forgot to put here the original question "How would you rectify the situation?" I won't be cryptic about the answer : the case winds up at ArbCom and we hypothetical arbitrators do our best. Now let's see another one.

It is very easy to keep information for oneself and peers. I discuss with J and *poof* one of us blocks R and/or does sneaky things. Is that R man allowed to complain ? What elements is he allowed to offer as proofs ?

Now if he just keeps cool, calmly tries to understand and goes on properly editing, everything is all right. If he takes it as an affair, things might go badly : is the new problems' cause his temper or the missing information ? -- DLL ^{.. T} 17:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How would you deal with abuse of authority by administrators, meaning by this application of blocks as punitive measures and use of blocks in unclear PA cases, as per

. Would you protect the sysop no matter what or would you defend policy above all? In other words, what do you consider more important: strict discipline or strict application of policy? Thanks.

Blocking policy and me

Blocking policy and I both state : "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. They should not be used as a punitive measure." What else ? ArbComs are here for the policies & the policies are for individuals whatever their power. Thank you for your question, Sugaar.

As the idea came in those talk pages, I'll put my mood as a candidate in a nutshell in this page and complete my statement. -- DLL ^{.. T} 19:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP says that it is not a democracy. In such a state, three independent powers are required. Here, it looks as if it was a little similar, as anyone proposes policies and vote for them ; various empowered users try to protect articles and users ; arbitrators give decisions (those should not use any more superpowers than requiring sensible information.)

The activities of each category of Wpian is clear and distinct. Arbs are allowed to know nothing of encyclopedia subjects, the same for admins. Editors may ignore all rules, except when it protects them or they lack respect to others. WP is fine.

Problems arise with people's temper, as they put their heart in what they write. This may be treated quite easily.

Problems arise with visibility. Google any word and ask why the WP's article is not n°1 by now. WP is no more fine with such a situation, as more and more energy is directed towards good order and taken off good editing.

Problems are sometimes linked with fandom and creed (political or else). These subjects are, or are not, encyclopedical. Fandom about notable memes (TV series, music or film heroes, games, the glory of the place you were haphazard born in) may be understood.

Creeds are a part of human experience and are welcome too. The first French encyclopedia dealt with powers and creeds in a perfect POV manner, according to its own agenda. There may not be any agenda, even a politically correct one, here : go and create your own 'pedia elsewhere.

May editors remember what they used to search for, find and like in an old style encyclopedia. WP is not that, but its contents must respect the reader searching anything in it. -- DLL ^{.. T} 19:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Do you think there should be an age requirement for ArbCom? Anomo 12:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. I have read on several websites (they even gave links to block logs) of Wikipedia admins who do things like indefinitely blocking accounts who have not edited for months, there was no CheckUser anything, no reports, and the admin didn't give any reason, just put personal attacks as the block reason (e.g. saying "troll"). Basically such cases seem done beyond punative, but just out of bullying. I saw at least ten of these, but so far I can only find one here [2]. I don't feel like digging for hours, as I just want to ask your opinion of whether you support or oppose such admin activity because it's clear most support it. Anomo 12:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. What is your view on the current policy often called "kicking them while they're down" of deleting the user and talk pages of people who are blocked? Anomo 12:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. What is your view on the practice on Wikipedia where a person blanks out text on talk pages because the text mentioned something wrong the person did or defeated them in an argument? The text blanked usually has no reason given. When there is a reason given, it's only a fake reason. In rare cases, the text is not blanked, but the entire talk page is archived including discussions hours old, blanking it out. Anomo 12:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5. What is your view on the frequent practice of locking the talk page of someone who is banned to avoid communication with them? Anomo 12:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6. Why do you feel in the past when in a conflict in ArbCom between non-admins and administrators that ArbCom has always sided with the admins? Anomo 12:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soon

Hello Anomo. We'll be able soon to see if those websites were made by people who were trampled down by admins. By this time, why not ask yourself why to the admin guy to did it. Either you have an interest in the case, just to know more, just for truth, and maybe you take risks - the risk being to find that truth is hard to define -, or it is not really a problem. I'll try to say more later. -- DLL ^{.. T} 06:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Age requirement

Good ideas not always find easy means. If an elected person brags that he will eradicate terrorism, can you believe him ? If a policy requires any proofs, how shall those proofs be delivered and verified ? Otoh, if the WPian baby does good job, such as he learned at school to do, where is the problem ?

The problem is - we elected the guy and we were wrong because he’s in the abuse and in the dark side of the powers : what do we do ?

Admin activity ( it's clear most support it)

When the police is rotten, politicians talk. When the politicians are rotten, people change them. Is it possible here ? Now when the police does its job, some shall find it easier to take an aggressive defense. Let them just discuss calmly here.

Deleting the user - blanking out text

This is vague, shall we go back to precise facts ? We write, criticize and enforce policies. Wikipedia is neither myspace or a free web host. - There are cases when it may or must be done : and preferably not in secret.

locking the talk page

Wikipedia:Blocked_users_can_edit_their_own_talk_page is not a policy. However, it says : But if they dare to mention that they've been blocked for no reason, we'll simply lock their talk page and threaten anyone who tries to help them. I support this, (apart the unuseful threatening) shall we try together to make it into a policy ?

Conflict in ArbCom between non-admins and admins

Let's stick to the facts. Admins are here to protect WP. If they have another agenda and they just did what we expect from them, it is ok ; if they acted according to their own agenda, something must be done. -- DLL ^{.. T} 18:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In one sentence, what will you bring to the Arbitration Committee? Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 23:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dfrg.msc, in one word it should be better, I'm bringing here what I'm trying to live : coherence within life, meaning coherence with recognised goals and acceptation of the chaos of life (if this was useful for you, let me know.) -- DLL ^{.. T} 09:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 20:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cyde Weys, the risk that you mention must exist but is it frequent, is it avoidable with your suggestion ? Political people get elected and disagree and tell things about others before TV guys - and go to the nearest pub together.

You are allowed to propose a new policy ; I say that we have enough, if not too much policies here and I won't support. Good luck! -- DLL ^{.. T} 07:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Based on your background, any prior conflicts, etc., are there any areas or topics where you anticipate receiving requests for recusal or would consider self-recusal? If so, what are those areas or topics and how would you resolve the issue of recusal in those cases? Thanks, TheronJ 08:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello TheronJ, and sorry for that late answer. I think that everywhere in life you must expect difficulties, or your occupation is useless. Arbitrators are not pure justice neither pure knowledge of truth. To a request I'd say - recuse me if you want, but mind that your arguments must be strong enough. The fact that I live my own faith must not impede talking about other faiths or other's faith. Now if I was the guy who ties arms to the chair, would I discuss death penalty ? Even if I take extreme cases, my answer stays quite formal as I was not involved in conflicts here. -- DLL ^{.. T} 19:59, 6 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.

DLL's

1.

• Hello, NinaEliza, thank you for your questions. My statement told what I understood about "what is WP" and more, what I would not like it to become. This I can contribute a a plain editor. Regarding your contributions, you have the courage to apologize, what shall I say ?

2.

• I recognize that plenty of fellows already did good job and knew what it was all about. A campaign banner made me see that there was more work to do than just writing information, my own statements tell that I ignored it before. It was for me time to think about it.

3.

• I am glad that, whatever I did wrong, no one was personnally angry, and WPians calmly explained to me what was the point. You may be young and want to break things sometimes, you may be old and worse.

4.

• I apologize to people that are dear to me when I understand that I have to.

5.

• WP is here for people to find knowledge. If the goal is impaired, there are things to do. One has to create an account to create an article, it was not so in the beginning. Some like Larry Sanger want to employ only a bunch of editors (this is not exactly exact, I know), we do not want that here.

6.

• (Feeling like at school ...) I came for fun and to see what I could do. I'm still trying. It's fun because related with openness and knowledge ; I'm happy because of people like you. -- DLL ^{.. T} 19:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is your feeling concerning the potential vote to desysop User:MONGO? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom decisions are decisions that you may, or may not, agree with but everyone should respect and a straw poll about them is not a good idea. What do you think, Zoe ? For myself, I might comment about the case which is quite old, not so awful in itself ... I'll just say good luck to Mongo if he needs to get sysop rights again. -- DLL ^{.. T} 06:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]