Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/Endlessdan/Questions for the candidate

Is this a joke? Jbeach ^sup 18:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm exercising my right to be bold. Think of me as the Green party. --EndlessDan 18:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fuckin' a, brotha. MessedRocker (talk) (write these articles) 04:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Considering your low edit count (keeping in mind that you've been here for over a year), how have you specifically demonstrated your knowledge of Wikipedias policies? - Rjd0060 18:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't. I don't know every every policy in Wikipedia and I probably never will. But I learn things every day. The knowledge I am accumulating has helped me go from vandal to a fairly efficient editor. --EndlessDan 18:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Given some of your responses to questions on this page, I think it is appropriate to mention that the Arbitration Committee and AC hearings should be carried out formally, with a certain (high) level of professionalism. Do you think you will be able to maintain a professional manner when working on cases assigned to the ArbCom, and if so, would it be any different than your current approach to things (for example: noting that your attitude on this election seems to be quite lax and/or careless)? - Rjd0060 20:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that a level of formality should be used, I disagree that a high level of professionalism is needed for ArbCom. This isn't my profession. This is a hobby. However, that doesn't mean I wouldn't take this position for granted or as a joke. You feel my attitude is careless, I feel it's more casual. Tomayto/Tomahto. --EndlessDan 20:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Do you feel that the Arbitration Committee takes too long to close cases? Or do you feel that they act too hastily and some important facets of cases occasionally fall through the cracks? Either way, what will you do to remedy it?
2. Can you give some examples of proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies on voting subpages that you disagree with? How about some proposals that actually passed? If you consider any completed arbitration cases to be failures in their intent, scope, or remedy, could you please name them and your reasoning why?

Thanks, east.718 at 18:35, 11/1/2007

I don't think the Arbitration Committee takes too long at all. People got jobs, people got kids, people got things to do. I don't feel they take too long to at all, considering they're decisions help run Wikipedia. I dunno what I'd do to remedy it. I gotta see what I gotta see first.

That's a hard question. I could BS it or throw around some big words and make it seem like I have a feeling one way or another, but I don't. I'll get back to you on that, bro. --EndlessDan 18:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are generic questions, so apologies if you've answered them elsewhere :)

1. How do you think that your personality would make you a good arbitrator?
2. Do you have any experience in real life that could relate to activities arbitrators have to deal with?

Thanks for your time. Majorly (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if my personality would work with arbitrator, to be honest. However the arbitrators I have come across seem like robotic creatures (with all due respect). I just wanna bring some flavor to this committee.

Arbitration is a task I believe everyone performs every hour and second of every day. Like this morning I woke up knowing I wanted to wear my new brown Nikes to work. And I made sure I color coordinated my gear so I look right. But right before I bounced, I ended up putting an old pair of kicks - just on a whim. Now I got a green plaid shirt and dark jeans with white sneakers.

Thank you for the question. This is fun. --EndlessDan 18:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, what is it about you that should engender our confidence? Wikipedia is based on policy and guidelines, and ArbCom is the arbitor of those as relates user conduct. You have not even demonstrated that you could transclude your nomination properly? -- Avi 18:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should just take me word for it. I'm a pretty cool cat.

Thanks for fixing my thing. Good looking out. I should mention, I'm also crazy polite. --EndlessDan 18:43, 1 November 2007 (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. Thank you,— xaosflux ^Talk 19:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC) (Note:Generic question for all candidates, other candidates are WELCOME to copy this question in to their subpages)[reply]

I've never heard of those things till now. I'll check it out though. I do think we should start restricting our newer users. Maybe a daily edit limit? A buddy assigned to them? I'm tired of the constant vandalism by new users. I dunno if that ever answers your question - but I needed to put that out there. --EndlessDan 19:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Question one: Is consensus really possible with over 200 people commenting on different processes?

   Answer: Yes. Any less, people would gripe about the same thing. --EndlessDan 13:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Question two: Does Wikipedia need some sort of governing body? If no, isn't ArbCom a governing body? If yes, what would you propose?

   Answer: I feel ArbCom is the governing body of Wikipedia. I don't understand your question, brosf. --EndlessDan 13:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. What, if anything, do you believe is wrong with the current arbitration process, and/or the committee? This includes anything related to the committee and its actions. If appointed, what do you intend to do to resolve these issues? i ^(talk) 22:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothings wrong. I intend on being another cog in this finely tuned engine. --EndlessDan 13:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on ‘Request for comment on user conduct’ processes that you have followed closely, how would you rate them in terms of fairness to the accused?

Thanks, Wanderer57 01:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rate em a 8.5 --EndlessDan 13:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1: The use of IRC evidence in arbitration cases has flared up in certain cases. A few questions on this:-

a) Do you believe that IRC conversations in Wikipedia channels (ie. #wikipedia, #wikipedia-en, #wikipedia-en-admins) should be admissible in arbitration cases where it is directly relevant to the dispute at hand? Yes --EndlessDan 13:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

b) Do you believe the Arbitration Committee has the jurisdiction to sanction users in these channels when it relates to Wikipedia disruption? If not, should it? No. That's ArbCom's perogative. --EndlessDan 13:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

c) If so, what are your thoughts on possibly creating an official Arbitration Committee IRC logging account in these channels for the purpose of providing corrupt-free logs when required for deliberation?

2: Can emails and IRC logs, etc., be published on Wikipedia? Why or why not? Should they, or shouldn't they? If they're public domain and pertain to an article, why not. --EndlessDan 13:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3: Are Wikipedians, in particular administrators, required to answer to the Committee for their activites outside English Wikipedia (ie. on other Wikimedia Foundation projects, Wikipedia-related websites including The Wikipedia Review, conduct linked to Wikipedia etc.). Should they be? If so, should the Arbitration Committee have intervened in the case of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes, and do you believe this was the correct decision? Yes --EndlessDan 13:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4: Theoretical situation: an OTRS respondent blanks a section of an article on a living person, clearly stating that it is an OTRS action based on a semi-credible legal threat in the edit summary. The respondent then protects the article and leaves a note on the talk page asking for the section to be rebuilt, citing OTRS again. An administrator comes along and unprotects it 15mins later and reverts to the old version. A series of administrative and editorial reversions take place, with protection and unprotection (with content reversions) occurring three times in quick succession before both administrators are emergency-desysopped.

The article is then reprotected by a third administrator, and a case brought before the Arbitration Committee. Upon reviewing the OTRS ticket privately on the mailing list, it contains a semi-credible legal threat which is now being dealt with by legal counsel. With regards to the three administrators, what sanctions do you 'support' applying to each of the three? Nothing. They were doing there jobs. Maybe tell em the deal and tell em to be a big more cautious, but it is what it is.--EndlessDan 13:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5: What is your (emphasis heavily intended) definition of a wheel war? A moderator on a powertrip. --EndlessDan 13:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any subject areas that you would recuse yourself from? Thanks! Addhoc 14:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure --EndlessDan 13:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate on how a vote for you would further a state of straight stone cold chillin on Wikipedia? MastCell ^Talk 17:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to bring some flavor to ArbCom. I'd be like the au jus to ArbCom's Roast Beef. --EndlessDan 13:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I have just one quick question for you. Why should I vote for you in all seriousness. You seem like a funny person but i think i want someone that's serious about the job in this position?? THanks, Weston 19:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is water wet? Why did Judas rat the Romans while Jesus slept? Why wouldn't you vote for me? --EndlessDan 13:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That reference alone has earned you my vote. east.718 at 22:22, 11/7/2007

I forgot to add 'Why is the sky blue' at the beginning. That's 3 votes so far - STONE COLD CHILLERS ASSEMBLE!! EndlessDan 01:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok, lol nice references. you got my vote (Weston 19:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

1. Can you elaborate on what you mean by "straight stone cold chillin." I'm middle aged, and have never been particularly hip. --Rocksanddirt 19:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is what it am, brother. What's cooler then being cool? Stone cold.--EndlessDan 13:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol, ok fine, you got my vote.

Surf's up? — H₂O —  00:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Word, word. --EndlessDan 13:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What specific ideas do you have that would make ArbCom better for wikipedia? MrMurph101 01:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think ArbCom should be a little more inviting. Everytime I read anything on ArbCom it feels like the dungeons of Wikipedia. What's up with that? --EndlessDan 13:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What do you think about self-admitted alternative accounts, see User:MOASPN, and User:Privatemusings as an example? This is a Secret ^account 01:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Provided they're being used to edit Wikipedia constructively, who cares? --EndlessDan 13:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What do you think of Wikipedia Review? This is a Secret ^account 01:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's cool. --EndlessDan 13:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever read it? This is a Secret ^account 01:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. But I did skim it. It was pretty dope. --EndlessDan 01:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?--ragesoss 03:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a differnce. Sure. Science tends to be an exact matter, NPOV's can be knowledge that's unattributed to a source. This was a weird question. --EndlessDan 13:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How much flavour will you be bringing? Neil ☎ 13:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere in the neighborhood of crazy and mad flavor. --EndlessDan 13:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What proportion of each? Neil ☎ 13:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been my most difficult question thus far. I will be pleased with a 60/40 ratio of crazy and mad flavor. But to be quite frank I am aiming for 'stupid flavor'. However, given my resources and experience, I feel that level of flavor may not be attained. --EndlessDan 14:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask you a serious question? Jd2718 02:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC) (sorry, just had to)[reply]

No. --EndlessDan 02:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boxers or briefs? Danny 00:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raw dog. --EndlessDan 14:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few questions from me. I'm asking all candidates the same thing. I don't think anyone's asked these yet but I they have, feel free to just point me to a previous answer.

1. Appointment to the Arbitration Committee is for three years - a lot can change on Wikipedia in three years. Should there be a mechanism by which the Community can recall an arbitrator in whose judgment it loses confidence? Do you have any thoughts as to what form that mechanism should take?

• No. Our power should be absolute and never can be questioned. --EndlessDan 14:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. ArbCom is responsible for assigning checkuser and oversight access to users of the English Wikipedia. Would you advocate withdrawing the access in the case of someone someone who failed to make sufficient use of it? If yes, what sort of activity level would you say is required?

• No. --EndlessDan 14:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Where the Community finds itself unable to reach a consensus on the formulation of a given policy, do you think ArbCom has a role to play in determining that policy?

• No. --EndlessDan 14:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time and good luck. WjBscribe 23:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, thank you. --EndlessDan 14:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What is your opinion on this proposed remedy? Wizardman 02:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clowns have no place on Wikipedia. How can they even read when they're too busy honking a bicycle horn or tumbling around on strategically placed mats? --EndlessDan 14:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Follow-up: How about this user? Just curious due to your answer to my last question. Wizardman 22:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A prime example of why Clowns have no place on Wikipedia. Vote 4 me. --EndlessDan 13:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the recent ruling in the French courts re WMF:

The servers for English Wikipedia are hosted in the United States, and the WMF is incorporated in the United States (Florida, specifically). But Wikipedians can access and edit Wikipedia from anywhere in the world (with the possible exceptions of China and Burma, maybe, but that's neither here nor there). Given that, as an ArbCom member, you might be dealing with issues such as possible legal threats against Wikipedia, whose laws does Wikipedia need to follow? What should be done if there is a legitimate concern raised by a Wikipedian that an article may be in violation of US law? What about law of a country other than the US? - Revolving Bugbear 16:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably the wrong person to be asking this too. I'm sure there is some process where ArbCom members confer with each other and come up with a decision that abides by both Wikipedia's policies and the laws of man.

But if you asking me (by my lonesome) to make a decision, on the real, I'm telling that canary to not just sing but to bring it. I believe 99.99% of the disruptive booger eaters on here are all talk. Pale, squirrelly looking kids in their daddy's office hiding from bullies and reflecting similar aimless anger onto the faceless of Wikipedia.--EndlessDan 13:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Which constitutes the greater virtue: the possession of honor or the possession of honour?

• Possession of honor. And while we're on the subject - it's flavor (or flava). That's for the user above. --EndlessDan 13:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Who won the debate, Curly or Moe?

• His name begins with Eric and ends with Drexler. --EndlessDan 13:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. What is ${\displaystyle \lim _{x\rightarrow \infty }{\frac {2^{2x}}{x^{x}}}}$ ?

• A party --EndlessDan 13:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Do you think an arbitrator should be active in all cases he has no conflict or interests in?
2. If the arbitrator is active, should he be expected to comment in workshop / arbcom discussion pages?
3. Do you think some editors should be more equal than others? I.e. should incivility of experienced editor - one who registered years ago and wrote or contributed to many articles - be treated differently from incivility of a relative newcomer?
4. How can WP:CIV and similar issues be enforced? Should they be enforced as efficient as 3RR?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yeah, why not?
2. No.
3. Nah. I believe in tenure, but on a whole everyone needs to be chill. I can't stand Wiki-snobs. That translates to real life-geeks to me.
4. No. Wikipedia isn't censored and I think that should not be just limited to it's articles. I can't tell how bad I wanna curse out and belittle some of the people on here. I'm sure we've all been there. But if you can't constructively verbalize your thoughts and work with a group, most users will found out quickly that Wikipedia isn't for them.--EndlessDan 14:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. What is the most valuable trait for an arbitrator? If you had to distill the essence of being an effective arbitrator into one word, what would that word be? ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Also, as a follow-up, if you had to sum up all of Wikipedia in 5 words or less, what would they be? ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My most valuable trait as an arbitrator would be my approach to ArbCom. I've read the other nominees opening statements. BO-RING. People should vote for me cause I'm ain't a phony and I ain't a punk neither. And if I had to describe an effective arbitrator in one word, it would be real.
• 2 Legit 2 Quit

Endless Dan 13:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. What's your favorite beer?

2. Are you a Burner? If so, which years?

I was referring to this, actually. Durova^Charge! 14:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Bonus points if you can do this: describe the plot of a recent film in terms of at least three Wikipedia arbitration cases.

Cheers! Durova^Charge! 04:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Heineken Light at the moment. Or Becks.

2. I was and still am to a degree. 16 - a few months ago. I had to cut back, but that's not to say I don't still partake. Why? You got some? Break that shit out.

Oh... that. No. I don't care for music festivals and I definitely don't like hippies.

3. Extra credit is for nerds.

Endless Dan 13:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I first came on to Wikipedia a year and a half ago the project was more centered around "Just the facts" - articles were more crafted around the who, the what, the when and the where, with some emphasis on the why. Of late, the why has taken on a dominant role in articles on contentious issues, with each side in the political spectrum putting forth their own "notable" mouthpiece to spin what the who, the what, the when and the where means. Do you think this is a positive development? Do you think this is educational, or do you think it makes Wikipedia another platform for the dichotomized public debate--that there are two sides to every issues, and two views--that is prevalent in American society?--David Shankbone 18:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this is a problem on Wikipedia, yes. But I also believe this is a problem that's a bigger then Wikipedia. Bottom line is everyone has their own opinions and agendas and that isn't just limited to the politicians and evening news anchors. On Wikipedia, if criticisms are appropriate, properly sourced and aren’t too far left or right of center; I think it can benefit Wikipedia.

I hope that answers your question. My attentive reading isn't the best. --Endless Dan 21:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you drink while editing? If so, what specific bevarage(s), how much, and give us a feel for what level of inebriation is your signal to get off Wikipedia. Qermaq (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. Cough syrup and grape soda. Level of inebriation needs to be between cuckoo and bananas before I log off. --Endless Dan 20:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. On a scale of 1 to 11, to what extent would you "keep it real" if elected? —Random832 19:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Would you support an annual roast of a prominent wikipedian, and if so, would you volunteer to be the first? —Random832 19:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A 12. And that's 24/7. Sometimes I'm too too real for Wikipedia.--Endless Dan 21:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In a heart beat. Let me be the first to nominate someone. --Endless Dan 21:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you under the age of 18? Thanks This is a Secret ^account 23:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No. Just another guy bored at work. --Endless Dan 13:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Seriously if you are running for arbcom just because you are bored in work? This is a Secret ^account 23:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Zuh? --Endless Dan 17:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that your anti-clown platform is just what arbcom needs. I especially enjoyed your answer to Wanderer57's question. So, how would you rate the following things:

1. The movie Crash. Not the strange David Cronenberg one, but the crappy Paul Haggis one.
2. firejoemorgan.com
3. Interstate 66

Thanks for your time. MookieZ (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. 5
2. 9.7 - (someone needs to start a releaseEliManning.com page ASAP)
3. 2

You're very welcome. Endless Dan 19:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution. However, first and foremost, we are here to work on an encyclopedia. Editing and adding to the project should be everyone's first priority. Can you point out some of your recent mainspace contributions that you are most proud of? AniMate 12:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was gonna mention I have been working on the Eli Manning article, but there is nothing to be proud of with that bozo. Did you see Sunday's game? 3 picks against the Vikes secondary. 3!! WTF was that?? I hope the next time I sit down to edit his page it's to reference him running into traffic in mid-town Manhattan during the weekend shopping rush. I hate that guy. --Endless Dan 19:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So that it won't look like I'm targeting anyone in particular, I'm asking this question of all the candidates. Were you a recipient on the email list used by Durova to distribute her evidence used to wrongfully block !! as detailed in this ArbCom case? Cla68 (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say that I was. --EndlessDan 15:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. What are your views regarding debates such as WP:RFAR/HWY and WP:SRNC? (In terms of dispute resolution).
2. a) What is the purpose of a WikiProject? Do you believe that WikiProjects b) own articles or c) can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
3. Do you believe that parent WikiProjects have the right to impose standards (such as article layout) on child WikiProjects? (Case in point: WP:USRD and its state highway projects)
4. a) What is your definition of canvassing? b) Does it include project newsletters or IRC?
5. a) In terms of vandalism and good faith but horrible edits, where do you draw the line? (scenario: an editor makes a mess of articles that cannot easily be fixed). b) Should blocks, protects, and / or rollbacks be in order?

Thank you. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. I think the results were fair.
2. A WikiProject is a collection of pages devoted to the management of a specific topic or family of topics within Wikipedia; and, simultaneously, a group of editors that use said pages to collaborate on encyclopedic work. a & b) It is not a place to write encyclopedia articles directly, but a resource to help coordinate and organize article writing and editing.
3. Someone who spreads a message with any prior solicitation from the recipient.
4. I think it's a judgment call. Most of the time it can be called by the edit itself and if that doesn't work, the user's previous entries are a pretty good indication if they are here on Wikipedia to contribute constructively or not.

Your welcome --EndlessDan 15:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a proposal at the Village Pump (Policy) that policies be protected from free editing[1]. Amongst the reasons for this suggestion is to prevent parties from revising policy in a way that favours their point of view, to prevent edit wars on active policies, and to maintain a stable policy base so that users can rest assured that they are staying within policy. Do you believe that this is a good course of action for the encyclopedia? Please respond from your perspective as a prospective member of Arbcom who would be responsible for interpreting policy (but feel free to add your opinion as an editor as well). I will be asking this question of all candidates. Thank you. Risker (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have to assume good faith and keep the policy as is (doo-rags and Tims), but also keep a close eye on who is editing the rules. And when folks edit the Pump - they need to explain their actions and if it is not agreeable by a consensus of users, the revision should be revised. --EndlessDan 15:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Can/should Arbcom create wikipedia policy? Or develop a proposed policy for community vote?

2. Do you intend to help create or propose wikipedia policy as an Arbcom member? --Blue Tie 13:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Arbcom should help lead the charge in proposing policy, but with the approval of majority of the community.
2. First rule: You do not talk about ArbCom.

How would you vote on this proposed principle: "While anyone may edit Wikipedia without the need to register, that meta-editing activities such as voting in an ArbCom Election are best protected by registering than by sleuthing". SilkTork *SilkyTalk 17:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd vote yes. --EndlessDan 15:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The questions below refer to the issues of ArbCom's integrity and transparency that needs to be maintained despite the universally accepted view that certain things should remain private.

Mailing list

Arbitrator's private mailing list, known as Arbcom-l and the arbitrators only IRC channel may obviously include information that cannot be made public under any circumstances. Additionally, being aware of the intra-ArbCom communication may give case parties an obvious advantage over their opponents. Who do you think should have access to such a list besides current arbitrators whose community trust has been confirmed in election that took place within the last 3 years? Should it include users that where never voted on? Should it include users who were voted 4, 5 or more years ago? Should users who are parties of the case, comment on the case, present evidence on the case, be allowed to have read access to the list where the case is discussed by the decision makers?

Secret evidence and secret communication of arbitrators with non-arbitrators

What is your opinion about the parties of the case (or anyone) contacting arbitrators privately about the case? This is not an hypothetical issue and it has been brought up in past cases. The obvious drawback is that if charges are brought secretly, the accused cannot see them and respond. Would you support an amendment of the arbitration policy that would prohibit parties from writing to arbitrators privately in relation to the cases? Giving evidence that has to be private due to its sensitive nature would of course be exempted but should this be the only exception?

Recusals

Arbitrators who are parties of the case or have an involvement with the case parties that can reasonably be considered to affect their impartiality are expected to recuse. What involvement constitutes the ground for a recusal has traditionally been left to the arbitrators' own discretion, except for obvious cases when arbitrators themselves are case parties. While recused arbitrators, especially the case parties, are allowed to take an active part in cases, collect, present and discuss evidence at the case pages, the same way as ordinary parties, they retain the opportunity to read the thoughts of other arbitrators at Arbcom-L and respond to those privately. It is technically difficult to exclude arbitrators from communication on a case they are involved. But would you support a prohibition for such arbitrators to discuss the case with other arbitrators through the private communication channels, except when submitting evidence whose nature warrants non-publicity?

Community oversight over the arbitration policy

Policies are written by the community and not by the ArbCom. However, at some point the ArbCom made it clear that the arbitration policy is exceptional in this respect and that the ArbCom intends to control the main policy that governs its own action rather than be governed by the policy written by the community. Would you support returning the control of the ArbCom policy back to the community or should the ArbCom write its policy itself?

No; Yes; Surely; Rod Carew; Children's set of golf clubs; No; No; Hell no!; and Yakov Smirnoff.--EndlessDan 16:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of ArbCom, would you place more emphasis on content or behavior? For example, in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds case, there is voluminous discussion on whether SevenofDiamonds is really MONGO, but no discussion on what got MONGO banned in the first place. If SevenofDiamonds=MONGO, then this is a behavioral problem but doesn't have to be a content problem. If SevenofDiamonds edits were reasonable (I have not researched it) would it make a difference?Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This goes back to my 'Stone Cold Chillin' platform. My message to folks like SevenofDiamons/MONGO/Joe Blow would be stop being a nerd. Seriously. If you have some pent up retard aggression, take it out on your realdoll or your make-believe girlfriend. I don't understand adults (appears he is older then 18) who feel the need to disrupt an encyclopedia, of all things. I can understand the occasional random barrage of vandalism, but to sock-puppet and too get this involved... I'm willing to bet members like him have never kissed a member of the opposite sex. --EndlessDan 16:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. If a vote for you is a vote for stone cold chillin, what would a vote for User:StoneColdChillin be?
2. What would you say to the people who oppose the things you support?
3. If you won the Spanish national lottery would you go "all Hollywood" and abandon Wikipedia?
   • Note The jackpot is only 400 dollers.
4. Why don't you have a picture of The Hulk on your check book?

--Bren202 (talk) 09:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. It would be a vote for me. Think about it.
2. 'I promise I'll put out as soon as you say 'stop'.'
3. Yes. I have no problem admitting I'd sell all of you out in a Jersey minute.
4. Checks? My grandmother writes checks. My debit card is gold. Solid gold, my brother.

--EndlessDan 16:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is your platform???. It is, for me, a required thing for every candidate so that I will know why you are urging me to vote you and whether I will agree with you or not. Everyone of us have different beliefs and goals in Wikipedia. Offended???I'm sorry and contact my talk page. -Pika ten10 (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-clown. This is an arb-com election, brosf. My platform is I wanna win. --EndlessDan 16:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only that you must win. I don't agree with someone who only wants to win an election without purpose for others... However, it's IMHO...

Offended? It's always free to contact my talk page. -Pika ten10 (talk) 06:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you've run out of steam halfway down your question page, how will you ever make it to the bottom of those damned ArbCom evidence pages? Fainites ^barley 10:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've mastered the art of skimming as well as the art of chillin, my friend. I was so busy chillin, that I didn't bother looking at this page for a week. --EndlessDan 16:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something between 'skimming' and 'anal-retention' for ArbCom don't you think? Fainites ^barley 23:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a somewhat similar line to Risker's question above, what is your position on the following?

• A policy page has had a very active discussion for many months. All sides (loosely termed 'pro-change', 'anti-change' and 'issue-specific') of proposed changes have made their cases back and forth numerous times. The 'pro-change' group is mainly users, with a few Admins. The 'anti-change' group is mainly Admins (including those who helped write the policy over the years) and a few users. The 'issue-specific' group is a mixed collection of users and Admins, but mainly users. All three groups constitute around 40-50 people total, per announcements on the Village Pump and related policies, to garner more widespread community involvement either way.

1. After numerous discussions, and comments over a span of several days to several weeks on specific issues, what should constitute a consensus? 60%, 75%, 90%, or unanimous approval?
2. If around 75% agree to a change, is it appropriate for Admins (especially those who helped write the policy) to revert changes and protect the page from further edits against their approval?
3. Is it appropriate for 6 or 7 Admins to more or less block changes to a policy through protection and reverts, when very active discussions have been ongoing and the majority of those participating constructively (not just saying "No" or "Oppose" without constructive comments) agree to changes?
4. Would it be appropriate for such a policy page which does clearly have a disputed section to have a tag in that section stating that section is under dispute and to participate on the talk page?
5. Should policies solely dictate acceptable and unacceptable content, behaviour, etc., or should they also define Wikipedia-specific terms and definitions (without stating so) that conflict with usage in different disciplines, or should such terms and definitions be more appropriately suited in a guideline linked to and from the policy?
6. Do you agree that policies are meant for enforcement or 'enforceable actions', while guidelines are meant to give guidance?

1. 75% seems right.
2. Yeah, why not? I wouldn't lose sleep over being over ruled by good reason or logic.
3. No. This goes back to a few arguements I've made on this page. It's Wikipedia - not life or death. A lot of admins and folks on here don't seem to get that.
4. Sure.
5. Okay.

--EndlessDan 16:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I feel that I need to close my questions to all candidates, as one of the editors in the above 'subject' has filed an ArbCom request. As such, it could be interpreted as unseemly or whatever for these issues to be addressed in this forum. I was in the process of cancelling my questions and replying in an RfC and the related ArbCom request when I had to leave to take my wife to a Dr. appointment, so pardon the delay in cancelling this. wbfergus ^Talk 20:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a community that produces and maintains a (still-nascent) encyclopaedia. This community has particular social and political structures that define it and that, presumably, affect the character, quality, and depth of its encyclopaedic output. Can you briefly summarise some political and social aspects of the Wikipedia community that you consider important or noteworthy, that perhaps need to be challenged or developed? How does the structure of Wikipedia encourage or inhibit access to decision-making and issues of power/control? Or does any of that matter? And what are the implications for the Arbitration Committee and its members? Pinkville (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get the sense that a lot of the folks on here have their own agenda. Which is cool. But sometimes people feel very strong about certain topics and feel their opinion trumps that of anyone elses. I don't like that. While Wikipedia isn't censored and neither is real life, there is a rule that has been applied to Wikipedia and to real life called Don't be a dick. And sometimes folks are so passionate about a subject that they seem to lose sight of this. I'm not excluded (despite my awesome chill prowess) and I don't think anyone is. But some folks are more-so then others. Some users (I was really tempted to link some names, but that would be an example of being a major dick) are totally unaware of this rule.

Do I ever think Wikipedia will ever be this perfect wiki-eutopia? No. But I feel that if more folks were more cognizant of this and less inclined to throw around stupid WP: shortcuts, Wikipedia would be a much, much more enjoyable place for both the Stone Cold Chillers and the Dicks out there. (Sorry, I couldn't help myself.)

This probably didn't even your question. Meh.

--EndlessDan 16:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's such a broad question - you were bound to say something of relevance to it! ;~) Thanks for your response. Pinkville (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rad. --EndlessDan 17:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]