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

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.

• Now that, my friend, sounds like a loaded question, and not a good one to ask here, not when I've made a point not to mention any names in a negative light, but I will say I have indeed witnessed a number of proposed decisions that I felt horribly missed the mark, and even tested my ability to assume good faith of the originator. Then, of course, it was explained to me that this was typical, that it's intended an ever-present system of sledge-hammer alternatives to whatever already exists on the evidence and workshop pages, half straw-man, half bait. But people just eat it up sometimes, and frankly, it scares the hell out of me. —freak(talk) 21:39, Nov. 8, 2006 (UTC)

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?

• Well first of all, not going to happen. But if it did, I would be dumbfounded. I feel that by granting that authority to the arbitration committee, or to any one user, Jimbo would be doing us a grave disservice. It's occurred to me that you probably want to know more about my opinions of existing policies rather than the prospect of having one of them taken out back and shot. Having taken a refreshing glance over the pages that are actually considered policy, they all appear well-intentioned, and I do not believe that any deserve to be nuked from orbit. Given the chance I would probably cut some of the crufty instruction creep out of deletion policy and criteria for speedy deletion, simplify it to the point where the average rookie admin can actually understand it and make it more closely mirror actual practice. —freak(talk) 21:26, Nov. 8, 2006 (UTC)

3. It is expected that some successful candidates will receive

• I have thoroughly read the policies regarding the use of these tools, and would gladly accept the opportunity to use them. I'm not saying that would be the cure to everybody's problem; among the abusive users we must deal with, the smarter ones use AOL, so not much can really be done, but it's always worth a try. If given checkuser privileges, I will respect the privacy of even the most vicious vandals and trolls as specified by policy. This is, of course, to as much a degree as the system will allow. I mean, if I close an RFCU as " Confirmed" and the (publicly viewable) block log shows me blocking a certain IP address for 3 to 6 months, it becomes blatantly obvious. If this is considered a real concern, one solution might be a higher volume of activity; might make it more difficult to just play connect the dots. Some sort of buddy system among checkuser-ers "you block this one and I'll block that one", would be even more effective in confusing onlookers, but it could cause problems down the road, if a well-meaning administrator tries to be Superman by putting a range block in the wrong place at the wrong time. Believe me, I was in that position myself, during the summer attacks by the "DickyRobert" vandalbot which would uses hundreds upon hundreds of single-edit accounts post a certain administrator's telephone number and other personal information in the edit summaries of high-profile articles linked from the main page. Lead developer Brion Vibber contacted my on freenode and told me, in no uncertain terms, to stop attempting to use selective undeletion to remove these edits, saying it was disruptive, unreliable, and likely to induce database locks, so I stopped doing that. At the time, however, it was the only option available to non-developers. Since then, the oversight tool has been introduced, a decision that was almost certainly mitigated by the same vandalism I myself had been less efficiently combatting for over two months. I noticed though, that the users to whom the tool was assigned were primarily arbcom, which seemed ass-backwards to me at the time. I probably would have given it to the people who most frequently and effectively patrol recent changes day in and day out, (folks like Curps^†, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, RexNL, FireFox, Shanel, Naconkantari, Tawker/TawkerbotX, etc.), rather than those who spend most of their time patrolling arbcom open tasks (arbcom members), for the simple reason that the arbitration committee deals primarily with users who are probably acting in good faith but can't get along with each other, not random graffiti-spewing vandals and trolls. I'm still convinced that our frontlines need this ability more desperately than the backlines. —freak(talk) 21:26, Nov. 8, 2006 (UTC)

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

• Integrity as an arbitrator means making good-faith decisions based on the evidence available, regardless of the surrounding politics. Keeps an open mind through every step of the process, without choosing favorite side from day one, without having any personal axe to grind, without selling out to any vector. Accountability means being willing to accept reasonable appeals if there is evidence that prior decisions were less than ideal, or could have been a lot better, even if I myself had been the primary author. It means being open to communication, and more strongly, criticism, with parties on the /Workshops, talk pages, and other venues, being able to explain in greater detail "I (supported|opposed) remedy X because..." but at the same time not letting one's integrity be compromised by popular opinion. I don't think that level of transparency exists at the present time, and I'd like to change that. It would be preferable to leaving oneself open to assumptions of bad faith in controversial cases. —freak(talk) 02:18, Nov. 9, 2006 (UTC)

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

• If you are referring to the Reichstag thing, I've already addressed that below. It's not funny.
• April Fools' Day is unpopular in some circles [1], which reminds me that you forgot to mention
  WP:LAME
  , which I found to be one of the most entertaining pages the project namespace.
• I could care less what kind of silliness so-and-so has on his or her userpage as long as it:

1. Doesn't become more important than real editing. Perhaps the most famous example of a controversial userpage was SPUI's, but if you look more closely you'll see how little time he actually spent maintaining it, as he usually had better things to do, like write about roads.
2. Doesn't exist primarily to attack other users. Linking to diffs, however, cannot reasonably be considered an attack, unless the link is labelled in a blatantly provocative manner, something like "STUPID edit by STUPID person". Some people interpret this principle too much too broadly, I think. If a user is quietly collecting evidence so that he can weigh it and decide whether i's actionable (through appropriate dispute resolution channels) I see no reason not to assume good faith. On the other hand, it may be intended for humorous purposes only, as with [2].
3. Doesn't attempt to make inappropriate use of copyrighted material. Try explaining to some editors that the "choosing a username matching that of a fictional character" is not a valid fair use rationale for non-free images of that character, but people still try it.

• As long as these limits aren't breached, I don't care whether the content of a userpage is phrased in the form of a userbox or a rubik's cube.

—freak(talk) 04:36, Nov. 11, 2006 (UTC)

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?

   Arbcom should not have this power. In practice though, Arbcom has any power its members can agree upon. I don't think that's likely to change any time soon, but if it did, being a member of the committee would cease to be a big deal, and you wouldn't feel the need to ask me this question. I explained this before in my original statement. The arbitration committee should not be attempting to create policy or enforce it, but rather determine whether policy has been broken, and whether the project has suffered as a result of it. If administrators disputing over the status of a proposed policy page, action might reasonably be taken against them if it is determined that they have been genuinely disruptive, such as 90-day bans from that particular page, but it is not Arbcom's rightful place to say "he's right and you're wrong (passed 5-2)" (in any number of words). —freak(talk) 21:08, Nov. 8, 2006 (UTC)

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?

   Well considering that arbcom had previously taken credit for desysopping him, when in fact it was an act of Jimbo, there may have been a presumption by some that arbcom could negotiate and re-negotiate its own terms regarding resysopping him, nothing would surprise or alarm me there, really. However, I find it disturbing that somebody would propose a remedy for Carnildo, when Carnildo was not an involved party in the Giano case, nor was there any reason he should have been, as he had not done anything objectionable, not since what? February? If people really thought an error had been made, they would have done better to open a case against the bureaucrats, but no reason to punish Carnildo, in the absence of misconduct. —freak(talk) 23:59, Nov. 8, 2006 (UTC)

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?

   I agree. It's necessary to measure the pros and cons of every remedy. You can't ban somebody with, say, 74,000 edits or 83,000 edits.... not for simply being obnoxious anyway, not when it would take an average editor decades to fill his shoes. In extreme cases, like actual malice, yes, but not permanantly. Nobody can accomplish that much if his or her heart was always in the wrong place. For the user(s) I'm thinking of there is no evidence of malice and never has been. On the other hand, a user who rarely does anything to help the encyclopedia itself... well there's an easy recruit. —freak(talk) 21:23, Nov. 8, 2006 (UTC)

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.

   I'm going to try to explain this in the simplest possible terms. If an admin and a non-admin have committed the same infraction, than whatever the infraction is obviously did not require admin privileges. For example, edit warring, personal attacks, copyright violations, an administrator is no less capable of these things than an "anonymous" user with no account, even. In terms of the Giano case, well... if there's an administrator making personal attacks and being obnoxious and turning Wikipedia into a full-fledged heartache-to-heartache battlefield, it might be reasonable to block him for a couple of days, and have him desysopped if he unblocks himself, or if he blocks users to further his politcal struggle, or something like that... I don't know if I can stress this enough: Being a pest is not grounds for desysopping! I don't really care for the featured article analogy. Arbcom has no reason to concern itself with featured article statuses, unless it's hearing a case misconduct in the FA selection processes, or something like that. Writers and admins are important, yet primarily separate groups of people. See [3]. If everybody was an writer, the site would collapse under its own weight. If everybody was an admin, we would be less of an encyclopedia and more of a video game. —freak(talk) 00:27, Nov. 9, 2006 (UTC)

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.)

   Many have noticed that

   list of shock sites, or wikipedia-watch.org (which concerns us dearly in light Brandt's remarkable plagiarism-detection script... however Brandt's pages may still be considered a categorically banned attack site, as defined by WP:RFAR/MONGO: "A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances. Pass 6-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)"). Again, I'm not trying to defend the trolls, I just worry that portions of this decision were more short-sighted and far-reaching than they seemed at the time. —freak(talk

   ) 03:06, Nov. 9, 2006 (UTC)

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?

   This process definitely needs some diversity. If other arbitrators' sense of judgement is so overshadowed by real or imagined pressure to "shut up and do what he says" (sheep vote, anyone?), some changes definitely need to be made. I may sound like an extremist, but I'm not. In fact, if you see me creating proposed decisions that are not even tangentially related to the /workshop or /evidence page, please tap me on the shoulder and ask me to recuse. If this happens on a regular basis, ask me to resign. —freak(talk) 21:58, Nov. 8, 2006 (UTC)

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?

   We should not be categorically excluding non-administrators, nor should we be trying to fill any sort of quota. Some non-administrators are quite active and have good sense, and some long-time administrators meet neither criterion. A certain analytical mindset helps too. Some have it, some don't. There's often a confusion of cause and effect, I fear. Looking at the past non-admin arbcom candidates that have failed, I'd hesitate to say that so-and-so failed his arbcom nomination because he wasn't an admin. More likely he failed it for the same reasons that his RFAs failed it. —freak(talk) 03:23, Nov. 9, 2006 (UTC)

Mailer Diablo, with credit given to AnonEMouse ^(squeak) for questions 10:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

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 13:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

   Indeed, I feel like I've just answered this question. Let me know if you have any more specific questions/concerns that you feel have not been satisfactorily answered above. —freak(talk) 20:47, Nov. 8, 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the hustings. These are standard questions that I have been asking all the candidates. I see a lot of questions up above, so to the extent one of your answers would duplicate something you've said above, feel free to cross-reference instead of repeating. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 16:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. What can be done to reduce the delays in the arbitration process?

   A couple of things. A more clearly defined concept of what kinds of disputes the arbitration committee is willing to accept would be a great start. More clerks, yeah that would definitely help too. However, the most significant factor would probably be more efficient communication with the disputing parties. If everybody on side B in a circle and waiting for somebody else to speak, because none of them really want to be there, but side A wouldn't have it any other way, well... it's gonna be a long night. —freak(talk) 22:07, Nov. 8, 2006 (UTC)

2. If elected, do you anticipate participating in drafting the ArbCom decisions? If so, do you have any writing experience relevant specifically to this task?

   I'm not sure how specific "specifically" is to you, but yes I've contributed to the /Workshop and outlying discussions of various cases, most notably

   WP:RFAR/HWY, which was probably wasted effort, as hardly any of it was reflected in the proposed decision, and even less of it in the final. I don't think that's right, and I could share my more complex theories on the matter if I thought it would make a damn bit of difference at this point. Anyway, yes, I definitely intend to participate in drafting the decisions to be voted upon, mostly to afford the process some balance, sanity, reasonableness, etc., which I believe it has been lacking for quite some time. —freak(talk

   ) 21:52, Nov. 8, 2006 (UTC)

3. Also, a non-standard question. Please confirm that this represents something other than your usual approach to the deletion and banning policies. Newyorkbrad 16:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes and no. I was serious in wanting the page to be deleted, but entirely jesting when I said the creator should be banned. At the time, I had not yet bothered to check who the creator was. It wouldn't have come down to that, but after the asinine so-called "shortcut" kept getting re-created, I decided to read and see what the page was actually about. It looked like random absurdist trolling/in-jokes to me, but weeks later it was finally explained to me how the phrase came about, and it turned out I was right... it was random absurdist trolling/in-jokes. I still think it should probably be userfied. —freak(talk) 20:55, Nov. 8, 2006 (UTC)

4. A follow-up to your answer to question 1 from User:Mailer Diablo, above. You state that "I will say I have indeed witnessed a number of proposed decisions that I felt horribly missed the mark, and even tested my ability to assume good faith of the originator. Then, of course, it was explained to me that this was typical, that it's intended an ever-present system of sledge-hammer alternatives to whatever already exists on the evidence and workshop pages, half straw-man, half bait." Are you referring here specifically to /Proposed Decisions drafted by arbitrators (as opposed to /Workshop ideas sometimes drafted by participants in the case or other editors)? Newyorkbrad 22:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Proposed decisions. —freak(talk) 04:32, Nov. 9, 2006 (UTC)

5. If the former, then without violating any confidences, can you provide as much information as possible concerning who (generically) advised you that "of course" one or more arbitrators allegedly engages in the practice of presenting proposed ArbCom decisions in the form of "half straw-man, half bait" "sledge-hammer alternatives" and what purpose, if any, is said to be served by such alleged practice? Newyorkbrad 22:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not sure whether this is worth responding to. Perhaps if you could explain how it might relate to my suitability for the position sought, I might see things differently. —freak(talk) 04:32, Nov. 9, 2006 (UTC)

6. There is absolutely no hidden agenda to the question (although I have been thinking about whether there was something wrong with my having asked it for several hours since I saw the earlier version of your response). I frankly did not know quite what to make of your answer to Mailer Diablo's question above. I consider the allegation that a sitting arbitrator may sometimes set up straw men in the proposed decisions or lay bait for the participants in cases before him to be quite serious. You yourself said it was scary. I don't know what the motivation for such behavior would be and I assume good faith of the arbitrators, so the suggestion is counter-intuitive to me. It seemed sensible to ask if you could explain further. I believe that if I hadn't asked you to expand on those comments, sooner or later someone else would have. But if you feel the question is remote from your own qualifications to serve, I won't press it. Newyorkbrad 05:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Fair enough. As for the way in which it was described to me by said individual (whom it appeared you were pressuring me to name), I'm of course hoping that description given was an exaggeration and that everybody actually is acting in good faith, somehow. Regardless of what goes on behind the scenes (which I may learn soon) and within people's heads (which I'll likely never know), if I do sense ongoing problems with the process, whether by design or through misinterpretation, I'll do my best to change them. Let me know if you have any additional questions. —freak(talk) 06:22, Nov. 9, 2006 (UTC)

1. Do you feel that ArbCom needs more cowbell? Why or why not? ~Kylu (u|t) 03:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damn right. —freak(talk) 20:27, Nov. 13, 2006 (UTC)

Q: 1. Who are you?

A: That's a very personal question, one which I would not presume to ask of a fellow user. Maybe "John Reid" is your real name, maybe it's just a pseudonym that happens to be more life-like than mine. I really don't know, and I don't really care either. Would I be taken more seriously if I said my real name was "Templeton Peck" or "Lirath Q. Pynnor"? Well, I would hope not... —freak(talk) 09:42, Nov. 10, 2006 (UTC)

A few reponses to your response.

• It sounds like the issues of personal privacy and being taken seriously mean a lot to you. Would you be able to expand on this?

• Yes, these are basic rights that many users forfeit, either voluntarily (by using their real name or by editing irrationally) or involuntarily (by being outed or discredited by others). Although arguably equal in importance, these goals need not be, and should not be, considered mutually exclusive. In fact, you may find there to be little correlation at all. In terms of basic information, let me be crystal-clear on this: my real name does not appear anywhere in any publicly viewable page on the internet (never has). I've been around various parts of America, don't have a passport or pilot's license. I've flipped burgers and shined shoes (for people who cared a lot less about my identity and/or credentials, even though I was getting paid for it, whereas there is no money to be made on this project). —freak(talk) 04:48, Nov. 28, 2006 (UTC)

• This short, simple question produced a response from you that presumed you knew the intent behind the question. If you look at the responses other candidates have produced to this question, would you agree that the question can be interpreted in many ways, not just the way you have interpreted it?

• In light of #Question from User:Balla Laika below, and the fact that many of the other candidates are already known by "real names", it doesn't seem to be an unreasonable interpetation of the question. For what it's worth, I have not read other users' responses to that question. —freak(talk) 04:48, Nov. 28, 2006 (UTC)

• If elected to the Arbitration Committee, would you attempt to find out what someone's question or answers meant, before you responded in depth to those questions?

• I had no reason to assume bad faith (and in fact I didn't). I merely took the question at face value, which I've also attempted to do, whenever possible, for the other questions on this page, without judging an inquiry by its source. —freak(talk) 04:48, Nov. 28, 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Carcharoth 03:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: Neither, keep guessing. —freak(talk) 09:42, Nov. 10, 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind providing a ballpark figure for the table here? Some candidates chose to provide no details, some their age, and some a ballpark figure. Carcharoth 03:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I am under 65. —freak(talk) 04:48, Nov. 28, 2006 (UTC)

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

A: If nobody has misbehaved, there's nothing to arbitrate. If somebody does break a few rules, but no malice is involved, and/or nobody's feelings get hurt, and/or the project sustains no measurable harm, there is likely still nothing to arbitrate. As for content/policy disputes, it should never be the arbitration committee's position to say "option A correct" and/or "option B should not be mentioned, ever again". A more rational approach would be "users 1, 3, and 6 have been disruptive" and "user 3 was so disruptive that he needs to find something else to edit for the next 90 days (or six months, or a year). Of course, these are vague answers to vague scenarios of course. If you'd like to ask something a little more... in-depth, go ahead. —freak(talk) 09:42, Nov. 10, 2006 (UTC)

• 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. 08:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Solutions to what? I've read this riddle of yours top-to-bottom and over again. You have neither asked a direct question nor indicated what type of response you are anticipating, so it's fairly safe to say I'm stumped on this one. —freak(talk) 07:28, Nov. 21, 2006 (UTC)

In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragesoss (talk • contribs) 19:08, November 10, 2006

wikinfo

").

I do not intentionally edit any scientific topics, primarily due to lack of interest. In fact, most people don't, and many of them may be simply taking the responsibility of keeping an article from becoming too one-sided in the experts' favor. This can only be a good thing. POV pushers come in all shapes and sizes. Any edit that makes an article less biased should be welcome. The more diverse the group of editors is, the better the product will be. Maybe I would like to edit scientific topics some day. If I did develop an interest in science topics, the presence of an "SPOV" policy or guideline would make it difficult, or outright impossible, for me to effectively contribute to such articles.

—freak(talk) 05:08, Nov. 11, 2006 (UTC)

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?

1. There is, as we know, a difference between people who disagree with the decisions, and people who actually think somebody is doing a bad job. Presumably the first group is always the more substantial one, but some people, I'm afraid, lack the ability to distinguish one sentiment from the other, whether said sentiment is felt they themselves, or by third parties. In any case I shudder to think anybody would actually consider an empty seat preferable. —freak(talk) 01:22, Nov. 12, 2006 (UTC)

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 the information's accuracy is disputed, it should be removed. Any editor has the authority to make such an edit. The users involved might be blocked for disruptive reversions, or for personal attacks if each begins primarily focusing on the other's credentials, or for libel if the disputed information pertains to a living person, or for sockpuppetry if multiple accounts are used to gain an advantage and/or evade a prior block or ban, or for any number of other things. This can be done by any administrator not involved in the dispute. If the arbitration committee's involvement eventually becomes necessary, remedies may include limitation of a user's reverts, banning a user from the article (more rarely, the talk page, and related articles, and their talk pages, etc., depending on the breadth of a user's disruption), a general probation under which a user may be banned from any administrator from anything, or a complete ban from the project as a whole. These are the common remedies in rough order of severity, but not intended to be an exhaustive list. Many cases may require more creative solutions, but as I previously stated in the answer to
  neutral point of view policy is not later compromised by same rulings previously devised to help uphold it. —freak(talk
  ) 00:22, Nov. 12, 2006 (UTC)

Around October 11, 2006, you blanked your userpage and blanked any communication on your talk page saying to email you. It looked like you had quit. Then days later you returned. What happened? Anomo 22:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I needed some time to deal with some rather unpleasant circumstances I was faced with in the real world, which had nothing to do with Wikipedia. Suffice it to say I failed, but I hadn't issued any promises/ultimatums either, as I knew the chances of actually quitting, or even taking as much of a break as I would have liked, were zero. So I wasn't about to kid myself, after making several dozen edits per day, every day, three days without editing seems like an eternity. —freak(talk) 23:53, Nov. 11, 2006 (UTC)

(more)

1. Do you think there should be an age requirement for ArbCom? Anomo 12:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No, simply because verfifying such information as a user's biological age would compromise a one's privacy. However, if a user's general age range becomes evident from his or her edits (a user might claim to have witnessed a specific historical event, which would suggest oldness, or the user might appear to have first-hand knowledge of the more recent aspects of public education, which would suggest youngness), people can think what they want. If a voter or group of voters wants to use that as a criteria, no one can stop them from doing so. However, they should be reminded that they are merely speculating. On the other hand, I would not opposed to a minimum requirement for account age, for several reasons. The information (account creation date, number of edits, etc.) is already publicly accessible (unlike the person's date of birth), and it's also more readily verifiable. Most importantly, account age and general experience with the project mean a lot more in terms of suitability than biological age and general experience in, um, real life. —freak(talk) 01:28, Nov. 30, 2006 (UTC)

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 [5]. 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 12:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It appears that the original block was for edits made to a page that is now deleted. Thus it is quite possible that the user made other edits on or about September 23, 2005 (the date of the final block) which may have been deleted (or even oversighted) in the entire year between then and now. Have you spoken to Rhobite about this? If I knew the whole story I would consider myself better fit to comment on this matter. —freak(talk) 01:28, Nov. 30, 2006 (UTC)

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 12:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Some people find the concept of "death with dignity" patently offensive. I would oppose any "remedy" that calls for humiliating a user, no matter how much he's done to deserve a ban. That having been said, I don't see that deleting a user's pages would necessarily amount to kicking, or humiliation. In fact, leaving the page to stand with a "this user is banned" notice on it would likely be more embarassing, particularly if the banned user was known to the Wikipedia community by his or her real name (in which case it arguably becomes a
  WP:BLP issue even?).
  We should afford ourselves some latitude to accommodate reasonable requests, provided they don't create undue burden for everybody else. However, if we have any reason to believe the user is evading his or her ban, or otherwise continuing to create problems for us, all bets are off. In such a case, we should be extremely cautious in deleting a user's pages, particularly if some of the content may later prove useful in identifying sockpuppets. I mean, sure, protect it blank, but leave the edits in the history, as they may contain clues about a user, including areas of interest, geographic whereabouts, unusual sentence syntax, IP address information (whereas the blocked account would be too dormant for a checkuser), edit summary patterns, etc.
  These things, I feel are especially critical because it is not currently possible to view a diff between two revisions if one or both of them are deleted, and because more eyes sifting through the months or years of evidence results in more people who could identify a particular user's sockpuppet from a mile away.
  So really, the issue is one that needs to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. —freak(talk
  ) 01:28, Nov. 30, 2006 (UTC)

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 12:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Really, it depends more upon what happens after that (for example, if they try to claim ignorance at a later date), whether they respond to it promptly, and upon the circumstances (were the comments blanked with an edit summary that said "let's discuss this privately" or one that said "fuck off"). This another issue that should be handled on a case-by-case basis. —freak(talk) 01:28, Nov. 30, 2006 (UTC)

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 12:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the nature of the communication. If they are being civil, if the "ban" did not originate from the arbitration committee, and/or if they are exhibiting a serious intention of appealing their it, we should be reasonable about it. If they merely posting personal attacks, legal threats, crapfloods, etc. there's no reason we should have to put up with that. —freak(talk) 01:28, Nov. 30, 2006 (UTC)

6. Why is it that in the past when in a conflict in ArbCom between non-admins and administrators that ArbCom has usually sided with the admins? Anomo 18:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree. Former administrator Dbiv got no free passes in the Irishpunktom case. Guanaco is currently prohibited from being an administrator ever again. Tony Sidaway was on administrative 1RR for quite a while, and the penalties applied to Everyking and Marudubshinki in recentent months were particularly harsh. Really, I think it works both ways. —freak(talk) 01:28, Nov. 30, 2006 (UTC)

1. Why should we be supporting a candidate who decided to publically agree on Encylopedia Dramatica with false accusations against an en.wp admin who has been shown not to have participated in ED at all? Actually, I wonder why you were editing an attack article on a fellow admin in the first place? Do you still think that was a good idea in retrospect? pschemp | talk 02:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I became aware of Encyclopedia Dramatica's "MONGO" article after I googled the internet for my own username and happened to find that I was mentioned in their "Bureaucratic Fuck" article. This is the same article that inspired the userbox User:Netsnipe/User Bureaucratic F**k. I posted a comment on the ED discussion page "Talk:Bureaucratic Fuck", and a "User:Samsara" replied to me. I thought the name sounded vaguely familiar, so I checked back on Wikipedia found that there was in fact a User:Samsara here on Wikipedia. I contacted this User:Samsara and asked if he or she was also ED's "User:Samsara" [6].

Immediately after this, I received a message on my talk page, from MONGO. See this revision as of 08:08, July 11, 2006, where MONGO informed me that he had already asked User:Samsara exactly the same question. I was not aware that it had already been asked by anyone. I did not find the explanation ("It's a coincidence") very convincing, but after what I recall being a very long discussion with you on IRC, I finally decided to take your word for it and forget about the whole situation.

Then I noticed that Encyclopedia Dramatica's "MONGO" article had already been updated to reflect the recent exchange of accusations here on Wikipedia. This made me more suspicious but I kept my feelings about it to myself, because I didn't want to argue about it anymore. To this day I don't know the truth about who's who and who isn't, and I really don't care at this point.

Maybe I shouldn't have asked the question in the first place, but at the time I wanted to know whom I was communicating with on the "Talk:Bureaucratic Fuck" discussion page. I tried to put things in perspective, and I figured if the person's primary focus was

trolling

on ED, and the person by sheer coincidence happened to choose a name identical to a Wikipedia admin-nominee, wouldn't that be a convenient chance for somebody to say "yeah, that's running for adminship on Wikipedia!" and cause greater confusion/drama? I would have thought so.

If they are, in fact, two different people (like I said, I'm taking your word for it), and "their Samsara" had all this fall in his/her lap, and yet did not seize what appeared to be a golden opportunity to viciously defame "our Samsara" through impersonation, maybe there is honor among trolls after all? Just a thought.

So, you want to know the reason why I made that edit, to the "MONGO" article, on Encyclopedia Dramatica, from my own self-identified account. Well, I didn't feel I had anything to hide. I saw that User:Samsara of Encyclopedia Dramatica had added the following text to the "MONGO" article:

He also singled out User:Samsara and blamed them for this article.... somehow voting against a wikipedia user of the same name from being an admin.

Because this edit is to ED's notorious "MONGO" article I'll respect the spirit of the Arbcom ruling and refrain from posting the diff, but it can be found in the corresponding edit history with timestamp "17:07, 6 July 2006"

I saw this edit, and felt that that they were calling MONGO stupid for assuming that the two Samsara accounts were the same person. So I added a sentence stating that I myself had reached the same conclusion. So, maybe MONGO and I are both stupid, or maybe neither of us is stupid. It really doesn't matter at this point.

If we were wrong about your friend, I apologize on MONGO's behalf as well as my own. I have my own disagreements with MONGO from time to time, and I realize he too is seeking an arbitration committee seat. Any incorrect assumptions he might have made under these circumstances are not ample reason to oppose his candidacy either, and I hope nobody construes them as such.

Here's a parting thought. Instead of posting this incredibly long explanation. I could have taken a much easier way out. I could have lied to everyone by saying "That edit wasn't by me. I'm being impersonated." And of course, nobody would have been able to prove one way or the other. Would you have taken my word for it (even when I'm currently running for arbcom, just like Samsara was running for adminship the last time this was brought up)?

Somehow I doubt it. —freak(talk) 08:39, Nov. 12, 2006 (UTC)

2. Well MONGO already apologized, yet you never did until this was brought up here. In fact, you left your vote at "Oppose due to unproven, unspecified suspicions, and more importantly, the candidate's failure to satisfactorily address them." even though the candidate stated clearly "it is a case of coincidence or impersonation." (From the rfa.) To answer the question you asked, during the time this happened, in conversations off-wiki you confirmed you were the same person as the freakofnurture account on ED so that question is moot. I would however have taken your word for it if you said it was an imposter due to the fact that that kind of thing has happened before on ED. Your conclusion that I wouldn't is yet another show of bad faith. Also, you insisted on opposing the candidate long after the misidentification was explained and people vouched for him and others were convinced that indeed, it was nothing but a name coincidence. Why did you continue to assume bad faith for so long and ignore the testimony of reliable people in the community? Even here MONGO apologizes and says he will try to get you to change your mind (which he did attempt) yet you never did. On arbcom would you also ignore the testimony of reliable users and make bad faith assumptions despite multiple and reliable assertations otherwise? pschemp | talk 02:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How long is "long after"? I opposed the candidate at 07:45, July 11, 2006, moments after I became aware of him. Tony Sidaway opposed a couple hours later, followed by others. Those who opposed were pressured to change their votes. Some did. I didn't.

The RFA the RFA was closed by User:Redux 19:49, July 11, 2006. That left a window of about 12 hours. During that time, Samsara made a lot of edits, none of which resembled an unambiguous denial [7] [8] [9], [10], [11]. After posting to people's talk pages, he remained online until after the RFA was closed, during which time he made several edits not relevant to his RFA [12], perhaps because he felt assured that his RFA would pass whether he gave a firm answer or not.

Consider this response, where he has been questioned again by Kim van derr Linde [13]. Wouldn't it have been easier for the writer and more convincing for the reader if he simply said "No, that's not me"?

Of course, if the other Samsara account was in fact him, and he had said "yep, that's me, but I did not actually post anything defamatory", I would have supported without hesitation. I opposed because his ambiguous non-denials made me believe he was hiding something. The general character of ED and the level of taste exhibited in the edits of ED's "User:Samsara" were of purely secondary concern.

I also noticed this "Well, I'm glad you were able to convince yourself of my innocence.", which I thought carried a "haha, joke's on you after all" undertone. When I first saw that diff, I

assumed "English probably isn't his first language" and that that was the reason for his poorly chosen words, so once again, I kept my mouth shut. I was wrong though; apparently he's a native English speaker living in Scotland [14]

.

Prior to all this, a comment was made by User:Girlvinyl on ED User:Samsara's talk page:

I voted you support for sysop on TOW. I HOPE YOU WIN!!!! :D My account on there is secert, but I voted for you! --girlvinyl 22:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC) (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Samsara&diff=1996965999&oldid=1996965952)

"TOW" redirects to the ED's article titled "Wikipedia". I believe it stands for something like "(This/That/The) (other/old) Wikipedia" (not sure, but it clearly refers to our site, en.wikipedia.org). The "Girlvinyl" comment was made at 22:24, 8 July 2006, three days before I became involved in this situation, and five minutes after a support vote on Samsara's RFA was made by 71.57.105.178 [15]! This edit appears to have been made by a Comcast Cable subscriber in Illinois (see ARIN data for Comcast netname "ILLINOIS-18" (71.57.0.0/17)). Furthermore, it matches the hostmask "sherrod ([email protected])" which has been at least once in #wikipedia (evidence can be found at http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/irc-logs/69-82.html). Sherrod is Sherrod DeGrippo (a.k.a. Girlvinyl, Encyclopedia Dramatica sysop, bureaucrat, and founder). NickServ has confirmed the use of this IP/hostmask by the nick "girlvinyl" as well.

After the IP vote was made and reverted, user Bouquet (talk · contribs) logged in and voted, claiming to have been the same person as 71.57.105.178. This was Bouquet's tenth edit, and nobody batted an eyelid.

Hopefully, you can at least understand my skepticism on the whole matter.

If assuming good faith (to you) means ignoring unpleasant feeling that one is being actively taken for a fool, we must agree to disagree. I've trusted you on several issues, this one perhaps was necessary exception. You'd be better off not letting my opinions of another user's level of candor hurt your feelings.

—freak(talk) 00:18, Nov. 13, 2006 (UTC)

3. One more time since you didn't answer this. How is this comment by Samsara about the issue "it is a case of coincidence or impersonation." an ambiguous non denial as you say? What other meaning could that have in English? The simple answer here is that Bouquet misidentified the user here because of the name coincidence. All the paranoia you still harbor doesn't hurt my feelings, it makes me seriously question your ability to be an impartial arbcom member. You statement, "Would you have taken my word for it (even when I'm currently running for arbcom, just like Samsara was running for adminship the last time this was brought up)?, Somehow I doubt it." is a direct assumption of bad faith on your part as to my actions, which has nothing to do with you being taken for a fool. pschemp | talk 02:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I did not respect you, if I didn't want to be able to trust you, please be aware that I would surely not have expended this much time and energy trying to explain why I felt the way I did, or why I feel the way I do now.

When I said "Would you have taken my word for it...?", I meant "If I had chosen to lie, you would have believed me?" I wouldn't expect you to believe a liar. I don't see how that amounts to an assumption bad faith. Maybe it wasn't very tactful, but I meant it as a compliment.

However, what I had intended to ask is slightly different, and it somehow got lost in the rhetoric: How would you have reacted, if the situation had revolved around somebody other than a close friend?

Another thing, I'm not any harboring paranoia. I have no reason to believe Samsara has behaved, or will behave maliciously. If you think I'm paranoid about Samsara, you are mistaken. If you think I'm paranoid about something else, please explain. Once again, if Samsara had responded to my question simply saying "Yes, that's me" or "No, that's not me" rather than evading a direct answer, I would have supported him. Instead of providing me with either, his comment on my talk page implied that he had no idea what he was suspected of, when clearly he'd already been made aware of the situation five days before, when MONGO had questioned him.

I've already said I'm willing to concede that maybe he didn't edit ED, but that's not the point. I do believe he (probably unintentionally) acted in a way that led observers including myself to become more suspicious of him.

I'm not asking you to concede anything. Just understand that my conclusion was based on the evidence I myself had found, it had nothing to do with any prejudice or bias, and nobody planted any opinions in my head. I've been completely honest in every aspect of this sicussion. This is the way I've always been and always will be. I don't change according to the prevailing wind of emotions or politics, and I really don't think there's anything left for me to say about this.

Thank you.

—freak(talk) 05:29, Nov. 13, 2006 (UTC)

1. Following on from Pschemp's question above, and since there is a growing concern that you are answering evasively, how do you feel your inability to close the case with User:Samsara and arrive at a professional relationship with that user reflects on your suitability as an arbitrator? - Samsara (talk ·  contribs) 16:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say I've answered evasively. On the contrary I've spilled my guts in answering the previous question. There is nothing more I could possibly say in response to it.

After misrepresenting what I've said, perhaps belittling it, you present an erroneous conclusion.

I've already stated (and reiterated even) that I do not distrust you as an administrator, and have no reason to, whether you've edited Encyclopedia Dramatica or not.

At the time I felt unable to ignore the evidence that ED User:Samsara was you (even "Sherrod DeGrippo" thought it was you), but I no longer care one way or the other. If you'd more clearly answered that question when I asked it, or before and after that when it was also asked by several unrelated users acting of their own volition, I would have supported your RFA, everybody would be happier, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I wish you had done that.

If nothing else I say has any effect, I'm willing to accept it. But please be aware that I trust you as much as I trust any other administrator. No more, no less. I have never poked through your admin log looking for items to question you about, because I never had any reason to suspect abuse, and I still don't.

Believe me, if distrusted you, I would have acted upon it.

—freak(talk) 20:25, Nov. 13, 2006 (UTC)

2. Would you say that your responses above are at all similar to mine when questioned, by you and others, about a possible involvement with ED? Does this change your view on past events? - Samsara (talk ·  contribs) 15:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's a significant difference. You avoided directly answering one simple yes/no question. I, on the other hand, have been baited into wasting several hours of my life responding to this litany of badgering and cross-examination.

If you truly believe your situation is comparable to mine, then it is obvious that no apology of mine would be good enough for you. If you won't be happy until I re-write my own memory of this incident, please don't hold your breath. I have nothing else to say about this.

Thank you and goodnight. —freak(talk) 22:28, Nov. 14, 2006 (UTC)

3. Do you feel that apologies can be useful? - Samsara (talk ·  contribs) 01:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they can be. However, I've already attempted to apologize to you and you've spit in my face. Good day. —freak(talk) 00:27, Nov. 30, 2006 (UTC)

Do you have 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?

I have been involved in the following dispute resolution pages:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ixfd64 (initiated; subject's behavior has changed; I consider this a success)
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SPUI (presented widely endorsed and rather damning outside view)
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cyde (presented widely endorsed outside view)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boothy443 (posted evidence and proposed findings of fact as uninvolved party)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano (critiqued some of the more outlandish proposed remedies as an uninvolved party)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways (did my best to keep SPUI from shooting himself in the foot; mixed results)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war (commented as an uninvolved party)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid (commented as an uninvolved party; reminded participants of the AndriyK precedent)

I professed my membership in the Association of Members' Advocates for several months, after which I realized not one person had approached me for help via this organization. At that point, I removed myself. Conversely, I still do have, and always have had, users (some of whom I've not previously heard of) who contact me for help on a regular basis. Usually it's something quite much simpler than I would have anticipated, but surely it means a lot to them.

—freak(talk) 01:17, Nov. 15, 2006 (UTC)

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 06:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I can see where this might be a possible area of concern for an aspiring arbitrator.

I'm aware of one arbitrator who has literally made fewer than a thousand edits to article space in the last two years. Personally I don't think I could handle that level of alienation from Wikipedia's supposed core focus. If arbitrators literally can't find the time to do as much article work as they'd like to, then there is a fundamental logistical problem to be solved, loads to be balanced, perhaps even more seats to fill. On the other hand, if arbitrators have no wish to participate in encyclopedic aspects of the project, because they consider such work to be mere peasantry, less important than their own, we in fact have an attitude problem, for which there may be no cure.

My original goal, which I set for myself during the summer, was to reach 50,000 edits by the end of 2006, but it doesn't look like I'll make it. I guess I got a little bit distracted here and there, you know how it is, but I think I can objectively say I'm better off as a result.

Times have changed, the toolserver's dead, most of the people I know don't edit as much as they used to, morale seems universally low. The list articles I help build in my early days as an editor, the very things that got me hooked on this site, are being deleted.

I suspect I myself have been suffering from some form of manic depression. Eventually, I may need to seek treatment for it.

Today is not that day, however.

There was a time when the "You have new messages" banner would kill the euphoric buzz of whatever I had been frenetically editing. These days it cheers me up to see that somebody has taken notice of something I've done or said.

I like it better this way, a brave, sober new world perhaps.

—freak(talk) 01:57, Nov. 15, 2006 (UTC)

I almost forgot. I'd like to write a featured article someday. —freak(talk) 02:20, Nov. 15, 2006 (UTC)

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!) 14:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once upon a time, I was informed that

assumptions of bad faith than I would have if I maintained my original position. Honestly, I believe if I were anybody else I would have just kept my mouth shut about the whole situation, just looked the other way, so to speak. Looking back at some of the discussions I've been involved in, I have concluded that the averted eyes approach is not compatable with the way I do things. —freak(talk

) 04:48, Nov. 21, 2006 (UTC)

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?

Errors in judgment occur on a daily basis. Actually correcting the error should always be the primary focus. Usually this is easy to achieve, sometimes it's difficult, as explained directly above. Punishment is only mitigated if there is evidence of actual malice, or inability to learn from one's own errors. There are four key types of errors — accidents, misunderstandings, incompetance, and malice (in approximate ascending order of severity) — each should be dealt with accordingly. Being able to tell the difference is almost always the difficult part. —freak(talk) 07:12, Nov. 21, 2006 (UTC)

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

Anybody who knows me knows that I've been a champion of many unpopular causes. Sometimes this annoys the hell out of people. Most of them (the ones I haven't heard from recently) tend to get over it in a reasonable amount of time. Sometimes there is no "correct decision" or "right answer" for a given situation or question... just a wrong one and a wronger one, so one really must be prepared for criticism regardless of the choices made. I've been through hell and back. I can deal with this. —freak(talk) 07:12, Nov. 21, 2006 (UTC)

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.

1. WP:C
   . Copyright violations should be shot on sight. What difference does it make whether an article complies with other policies/guidelines, if it consists of material that's not ours to use?
2. WP:NPOV
   is, of course, non-negotiable. Attempting to satisfy other policies/guidelines at the expense of a neutral presentation is a formula for disaster.
3. WP:V
   the article contains material presented as facts. Can they be verified?
4. WP:RS
   might we be falling prey to another elaborate hoax? or just sensationalist journalism.
5. WP:BLP
   addresses more symptoms than problems. No article could fail WP:BLP without first failing at least one of the three policies immediately above.
6. WP:NOR widely misinterpreted, but clarified here
   .
7. WP:N
   if a high-quality article can be written in a manner compliant with everything above, what difference does notability make? We've got pokémon, farm roads, asteroids, bible verses, and American Idol rejects. If there's a hard line to be drawn anywhere, I don't see it.
8. WP:NOT
   is difficult to place anywhere on this list, because it consists primarily of weaker restatements of more ambitious policies. The strongest part of this policy page is, of course, "Wikipedia is not censored...", however this should already be understood as part of the neutral point of view policy, but reminders don't hurt anything, nor does redundancy. The only real problems lie in imagined contradictions in verbiage, even though one is clearly derived from the other.

—freak(talk) 07:12, Nov. 21, 2006 (UTC)

One of the areas where Wikipedia's reputation has been hurt most, is our handing of living persons, especially defamation of them. A common problem, when dealing with living people, especially the "barely notable" is the "rough" language often seen in AFD, and surrounding discussions. Often AFD particpants forget that their comments are read by the general public, even the subjects themselves; and can therefore hurt the feelings and reputation of the person they're referring to. They might excuse hurtful comments as being "humurous" (no matter how hurtful). Arbitrators (after admins) are sometimes needed to put a stop to an editor using Wikipedia to defame a living person. That may even mean banning some people from the project. So how do justify this page, which is esesntially uses a prostitute's name to denigrate several living person's. --Rob 18:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "humor" tag is a bit of a misnomer. Although the page you refer to is satire, it exists to illustrate the hypocrisy of AFD as I saw it (the multitudes of biographies less notable than "Amy" that have been kept, and the ones more notable than "Amy" that have been deleted), and to draw conclusions regarding the likely outcome of an AFD discussion (charting existing data and looking for patterns, some subtle, some unmistakable), and to determine what effect mentioning "Amy" might have on the result (similarly to Ted McGinley joining the cast of a television show, perhaps). In this way, it was actually intended for research purposes. I do believe that we can both agree that this page (which contains more "negative unsourced information" than anything in my userspace) probably should have been deleted (or at least it should not have been unanimously kept), based on the principles you yourself are citing. It's that stereotypical biography article that everybody wants to keep and nobody wants to fix. I knew there was a reason I've begun to avoid participating in AFDs, and I think you may have helped me find it. —freak(talk) 05:11, Nov. 21, 2006 (UTC)

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

I'm going to assume that by "PA" you mean "personal attack(s)", though that does not make the question much clearer. Obviously, if one sees a comment and has reasonable doubt that it was intended as a personal attack (particularly if the writer is, as yourself, a non-native speaker of English), it would be better to assume good faith, as it could all be just a big misunderstanding, or poor choice of words, or possibly an underlying tendency to state the obvious with little regard for being tactful. I believe a large portion of perceived "personal attacks" stem from one cultural difference or another and fall into one of these groups I have listed, in which case blocking should not be the immediate reaction.

However if a comment is obviously intended to hurt another user, or if there are enough subtle remarks, possibly ambiguous ones, following the same pattern, there are definite issues to be resolved.

I'm not sure what you mean in last part of your question. Generally speaking, "strict discipline" is "strict application of policy", unless a user is being disciplined for something not explicitly codified in policy, but a block for personal attacks is entirely within policy, so I'm a bit confused. More subtle behavior such as just being obnoxious over a long period of time may fall into the category of "exhausting community patience", but only if the disruption overshadows the user's positive contributions.

—freak(talk) 02:21, Nov. 23, 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Board members as well as stewards are now required to make their real names known. Additionally, almost all current ArbComm members either use their real name as their userid or have allowed their real names to become known which adds to the transparency and accountability of the ArbComm. Are you willing to reveal your real name? Balla Laika 23:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I did provide something that sounded like a real name, nobody would be able to prove it true or false, because I'm utterly non-notable and my real name does not appear anywhere else on the internet, so I don't see why it would need to appear here. —freak(talk) 01:59, Nov. 23, 2006 (UTC)

Also there are certain advantages to remaining anonymous, see http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html#040. —freak(talk) 23:12, Nov. 24, 2006 (UTC)

In one sentence, what will you bring to the Arbitration Committee? Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 23:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• More cowbell? —freak(talk) 05:12, Dec. 2, 2006 (UTC)

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 20:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This might reasonable guideline if we it were generally accepted, placed at the top of every voting page, and made enforceable, however consider the following:

• Most, if not all, candidates have already commented on sitting arbitrators (in their statements and/or in the answers to the questions asked by other users, particularly on arbitrators who are not scheduled for replacement after the upcoming election).
• A large portion of the people who comment or vote in requests for adminship, even to oppose a candidate, are in fact existing administrators, and RFA candidates can and often do get promoted and become admins even after being opposed by other admins. Administrators are also expected to work together peacefully, as are bureaucrats, whose RFB candidacies often face the same scenario.

It's a good idea, but nobody is going to enforce it. I'll see what I can do, but if I begin receiving votes/comments from other candidates and/or from sitting arbitrators, I will likely respond in kind, because I don't believe it would be fair to restrict myself from doing so, in such a situation. However, regardless of the circumstances, I will obviously refrain from vehemently attacking anybody, whether they are running for arbcom or not, just as I have done thusfar. —freak(talk) 23:36, Dec. 2, 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I'd say that you ultimately reserve the right to excercise your vote. It should be already understood by all respected and high-esteemed candidates that by the end of this election, there should be no hard feelings regardless of supports or opposes. As from my observations at the January elections, hard feelings usually come not from the votes, but from the comments that are associated with the votes. Henceforth, I think restraining to comment in your votes is the best way to go. - Good luck and best regards,

Mailer Diablo 22:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

1. Based on your candidate statement that you have no conflicts of interest, is it fair to assume that you would not recuse yourself from an arbitration unless you had a direct history with the conflict at issue or with the participants? Under what circumstances would you recuse?

2. Based on your background, any prior conflicts, etc., are there any areas or topics where you anticipate receiving requests for recusal? Thanks, TheronJ 19:19, 3 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.