Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for Wildthing61476

A note to all with questions for me

I plan to give all of your questions a good deal of thought, and as such I will probably have a delay of a day or so to make sure I give a well thought-out answer. Thank you for your patience. Wildthing61476 13:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My sincerest apologies, I have had a family matter to take care of and have not been able to repsond to your questions. Rest assured I will have these answered soon. Again I do apologize for the delay. Wildthing61476 03:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, getting back to business, sorry for the delay! Wildthing61476 21:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question(s) from xaosflux

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 02:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Questions from Mailer Diablo

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 checkuser and oversight privileges. Have you read and understood foundation policies regulating these privileges, and able to help out fellow Wikipedians on avenues (e.g. WP:RFCU) 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 bad jokes and other deleted nonsense, parody policies/essays, April Fools' Day, whole userpages, userboxes... Do you think that they are all just harmless fun, or that they are all nonsense that must go?

Questions from Newyorkbrad

These are the standard questions I've been posing to all the candidates. Thanks for your replies. Newyorkbrad 23:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would feel that committee memebrs who are actively working on arbitration cases could help speed the process oup, in addition, making sure editiors involved in the processs be made aware of what is going on, and having their input in a speedy and timely manner. Wildthing61476 15:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you anticipate participating in actually writing the ArbCom decision? If so, do you have any writing experience germane to this particular type of drafting?

I would feel that if I were to be part of the Arbitration Committee, that I should be responsible in drafting some of the decision, especially if I were to take a large part of the decision making process. I have some experience in writing policy and procedure at my job, so drafting a decision such as this should not be too difficult of a task. Wildthing61476 15:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Alphax

To be honsest, I don't know you from a hole in the ground. How long have you been here, what have you been doing, and if you're an admin, since when? [ælfəks] 13:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm been here since June 14th, 2006 (30th birthday oddly enough), and during my time here I have been a new page/recent change patroller. In addition I have also worked with the Counter Vandalism Unit to help clean the number of vandal attack on a regular basis. As of right now, I am not an admin, however I have contemplated nominating myself for the position, as I feel I can offer a great deal in that role as well. Wildthing61476 16:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any POVs we should know about? When would you recuse yourself? [ælfəks] 13:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we ALL have our own POV in general regarding our beliefs, opinions, etc., but as an editor here I have tried to keep what I feel is "right" from impacting my edits. As I have said in some AfD discussion, Wikipedia is not left or right, not liberal or conservative, but black and white, and when I edit here I keep my opinions to myself in place of the facts. If I felt too strongly about a topic hwever to the point I feel I would be making a negative impact, at that point I would recuse myself and explain why I would be doing so. Wildthing61476 16:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from AnonEMouse

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?) :-)

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?
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?
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?
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.
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.)
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?
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) 14:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from John Reid

Q: 1. Who are you?

A: I'm Batman. No seriously, I'm Rick, been an editor here at Wikipedia since June 14th (my 30th birthday oddly enough). I tend to patrol new pages and recent changes and also work with the Counter Vandalism Unit. Wildthing61476 16:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: As the above answer shows, I'm well past those ages, and haven't seen my teens since the 1990's Wildthing61476 16:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: I feel ArbCom should be called as it stands now, with oversight on user conduct issues. Policy disputes, at least to be, have their own forum with the admin and their own channels, and as such their own means of resolution. Wildthing61476 16:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical from John Reid

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. 09:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Ragesoss

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

From reading the WP:SPOV article, it appears that SPOV is a component of NPOV, especially when it comes to the natural sciences. SPOV is established from a series of tests, hypothesis, experiments, etc., and as such are facts that can contribute to keeping an article in a NPOV. Wildthing61476 16:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Badbilltucker

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?

I feel that by my nomination for the Arbitration Committee, I am making the commitment to serving my time on the committee, if I were to be named. I would not consider resigning my post, unless outside circumstances (i.e. important family matters, life-altering changes, etc.) would force me to do so, and I would only resign after I have spoken with the other members and advised them of what the details as to my resignation would be. As for resignation due to negative feelings, if I were to let negative feelings regarding a decision I have made in a case affect my membership on the ArbCom, I would not be worthy of being on the committee to begin with. Good or bad opinion of me wise, I will serve my term if I were to be selected. Wildthing61476 17:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 a scenario such as this were to arise, I would want to speak with my colleagues regard the matter to begin with, and see what they know, as well as what viewpoint they have on the issue at hand. If they were to express that they are not familiar with the issue, or have a hard-and-fast POV on it, I would hope that they would exclude themselves from the discussion, as I would if I felt my decision would be counter-productive to the goals of the Arbitration Committee. Wildthing61476 17:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question(s) from Dakota

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 13:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably the easiest question to answer to me so far, as yes I will continue to actively edit articles. I feel a good arbitrator needs to be aware of what is going on, and has enough insight as to what is being edited, and staying an active editor can assist me in this regard. I have always been helpful to thoughs who have questions and would be more than willing to assist users with questions that they may have. Wildthing61476 16:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question from JzG

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!) 13:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been a frequent contributor to AfD discussions and there have been a few times where I have given my opinion, for or against an article's deletion, but after revision to the article, input from other editor, or a better explanation, I have changed my opinion and revised my decision. I'm free to admit when I'm wrong, I'm human and make mistakes and while not a push-over, if given a clear and convincing arguement to why I am wrong, I can change my opinion and admit I am incorrect. Wildthing61476 16:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Torinir

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?

I would review the facts to be sure that error had occurred, and if the position was incorrect, I would state it as such and make my decision from there. Wildthing61476 15:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would not waver from my decision, but would explain why I was making the decision and the reasoning behind it. I understand not every answer will be popular, and will be met with some distain, however it's true that you can't please all the people all the time. Wildthing61476 15:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

WP:V WP:BLP WP:NOT WP:NPOV WP:NOR WP:C WP:RS WP:N

This is a tough question, simply because each article may have a different set of things to look into. With that being said, generally I would review an article using the criteria like this:

WP:N - Is the article notable enough to even be on Wikipedia?

WP:V - Can the facts in the article be verified?

WP:RS - Can those facts be verified through reliable sources?

WP:NOT - Is this an article created mainly as a joke, or something made up in school/work, etc?

WP:NPOV - Is the article written from a neutral point of view?

WP:C - Does the article violate any copyrights?

WP:NOR - Is the article based on sources, or just original research which cant be verified (going back to WP:V and WP:RS)?

WP:BLP - If the article is about a living person is it wrriten in a fashion that is not offensive, libelous, etc.? Wildthing61476 15:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Sugaar

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 WP:BLOCK. 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.

Questions from Anomo

1. Do you think there should be an age requirement for ArbCom? Anomo 12:14, 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 [1]. 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 12:14, 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 12:14, 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 12:14, 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 12:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 16:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Dfrg.msc

In one sentence, what will you bring to the Arbitration Committee? Dfrg.m s c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 23:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting in the elections

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 20:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from NinaEliza 01:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom Candidate Questions

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 Soft Power.

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.

Questions from LoveLight

Would you kindly evaluate and/or comment article 911. As a reader do you find that piece factual and accurate? As an editor do you find it satisfying (with regards to our fundamental Wiki policies and guidelines)? As future arbitrator how do you feel about status quo imposed on that and similar "ever burning" editorials? Lovelight 10:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Zoe

What is your feeling concerning the potential vote to desysop User:MONGO? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]