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

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

These are copies of questions initially asked by John Reid.

1. Who are you?

I'm Andrew. It's nice to meet you. I definitely won't presume that everyone knows me already, so I invite everyone to have a look at my userpage and my various articles to get a sense of what I'm all about. I'm in the process of writing up some of my wiki principles for viewers to peruse as well. I'll put it at User:Starblind/Wikiphilosophy Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Are you 13? Are you 18?

Yes, and yes. I'm in my 20s. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

ArbCom is the last line of defence for any sort of dispute when other means (within reason) have been tried and failed. I would say that would include policy disputes, provided the dispute is significant enough and contentious enough to bring before Arbcom. Whatever isn't solved by Arbcom eventually goes to Jimbo, and thus Arbcom has an important role in keeping issues off Jimbo's plate whenever possible. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Express in a short paragraph, using any particular issue/incident that you feel strongly about (or lack thereof) in the past, on why editors must understand the importance of the ArbCom elections and making wise, informed decisions when they vote.

• We've all heard, straight from Jimbo, that adminship is no big deal. Arbcom, however, is a big deal, and it's important to get it right. The potential damage done by a "bad" arbcom member is exponentially greater than the potential damage from a "bad" admin or "bad" editor. Since the arbcom is a fairly small group, voters must be extremely careful who they elect. The perfect arbcom member needs to be tough but fair, and able to make big decisions. One of the finest examples of arbcom decision-making in recent memory was the E.D. case, which saved everybody from a whole lot of grief. It couldn't have happened with a wishy-washy wait-and-see attitude, either. They made a tough decision, they knew it would come with some controversy, but they were right. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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?

• That's an interesting question. Probably the simplest answer is that if there were any policy I wanted (or wanted gone) I'd be out there trying to get it done rather than waiting for magic Jimbo powers. The most recent policy change that I was the driving force behind was the Death Threats prohibition: consensus was that it didn't need to be a policy on its own, but it did result in a specific banning provision for death threats at WP:NPA. I'm quite proud of that one. But okay, for a truly straight answer to the question: I'd make WP:DENY a firm policy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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?

• I'm ready to use the tools it takes to do the job. I think it says something that in a year and a half of being an admin I've yet to have a single controversy over use of admin tools, and I doubt that checkuser or oversight would be any difference if I end up with them. In regards to the "timely" point, I'll go for full disclosure and state that I usually travel on the weekends and don't have access to the 'net, but I do check WP at least once almost every weekday. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

• All good qualities for an Arbcom member to have, obviously, but also important for admins and editors as well. Let's look at them one by one. They're also closely related and tend to go hand-in-hand. Those involved with arbcom cases as well as the community in general have a right to know what's going on. The majority of arbcom functions should be handled on-wiki as much as possible. I've handled integrity, accountability and transparency in my own way, simply by using my own real name since the beginning. I've never said or done anything on-wiki that I wouldn't stand behind 100% off-wiki as well. I know that with each edit, moms, girlfriends, and co-workers might be watching. I think that's given me a great deal of strength. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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?

• This is an easy one. Humour should be allowed and even encouraged up to the point where it starts interfering with our ability to create an encyclopedia. I use humour quite a bit myself, especially on AfD, where it helps things from getting too confrontational. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

• (Note: The ArbCom has traditionally stayed away from article-content disputes. However, I believe an ArbCom member should have a strong knowledge and understanding of all issues facing the wiki, so this is still a good question and worth answering.) In the vast majority of cases, NPOV and SPOV are one and the same. Readers have a general expectation that an encylopedia will present the most factual and scientifically-proved view of a topic. However, that isn't to say that other points of view should be fully excluded: they can add quite a lot to the article if care is taken to seperate them from scientific fact. For example, the Barnacle Goose article includes a whole paragraph on the medieval folklore tradition that these geese somehow hatch out of barnacles, which is quite goofy but also important for placing the goose in its cultural context. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• After giving this question careful thought, I've concluded that I consider my own resignation a virtual impossibility. I've been with Wikipedia long enough that I'm not going anywhere anytime soon. The only even slightly plausable scenarios in which I'd resign would be if I became mentally unfit to do the job (example: an accident resulting in brain damage) or if the project itself were to fundamentally change to the point that its basic principles were violated (example: if Wikipedia became ad-supported or a pay site). "Never say never," I suppose, but I think the chances are so incredibly slim that they aren't worth weighing or considering. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:04, 1 December 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?

• That sounds to me like a content dispute, and the ArbCom tends not to handle those. The ArbCom's job in such a case would not be to expertly validate or invalidate any particular research, but to determine whether the bahaviour of the editors involved is in serious violation of Wikipedia policy. In an argument, it's possible for one person to be "right" and still display unacceptable conduct, and in most cases it's possible to determine that without necessarily having expert knowledge of the topic being argued. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Do you think there should be an age requirement for ArbCom? Anomo 16:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• A requirement? Probably not. However, I would imagine anyone under 18 or so would have a tough time getting elected. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:26, 30 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 16:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]

• I don't know the whole story behind the diff you provided, but a quick look into the user's contributions shows that the block was probably warranted (see this diff for example). The blocking admin probably should have done more to describe the situation though. In any case, I don't think time since last edit has anything to do with whether a user should be blocked or not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:26, 30 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 16:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a case-by-case basis situation. It depends on what the pages contain, and whether there's a reasonable chance to believe that the blocked user might come back. If the block is indefinite or significantly long, there should at least be a template used so other users can tell at a glance that the user is under a block. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:26, 30 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 16:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you mean their own talk page or other people's? Users should have a reasonable amount of leeway in editing their own userspace, including immediately removing taunting, trolling remarks, or obvious vandalism. Warning templates and the like should be allowed to be removed when a reasonable amount of time has passed, such as a few months of no further warnings. Users should not feel compelled to give a reason when removing any of the above from their own userspace. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I asked about several things, here but the part seems to be ignored by most I ask it to. I have seen where there is heated debate, someone who dislikes the debate or is losing (I have usually seen admins do this) they will archve the entire talk page of an article, including discussions hours old (sometimes minutes), just say archiving and the talk page is empty. Two examples come to mind, but if I name them I might risk offending the admins so I would rather not. Anomo 02:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh, you meant article talk pages. Archiving stuff that's very recent and hasn't been fully discussed is indeed frowned upon, especially if it appears that the reason for doing so is to obfuscate evidence or stifle debate. In a community built around discussion, hiding discussions before they're over is a bad idea. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:56, 2 December 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 16:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Another situation which can only be considered on a case-by-case basis. Most banned users don't need their talk page to be locked, but some do use their talk to hold post-blocking temper tantrums or continually and repeatedly insert unblock templates, which then gum up the unblocking process and take attention away from legitimate requests. In any case, even if the talk page is locked they can still contest their blocking in a number of ways, such as emailing an admin or writing to the mailing list. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:07, 1 December 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 16:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that may once have been the case, but in general I wouldn't agree with that now. When I first came to Wikipedia the ArbCom seemed extremely reluctant to sanction admins and established editors, and on the rare occasion that sanctions were imposed, they were little more than the proverbial "slap on the wrist". Whether this was organised "cabalism" or simply wide-eyed optimism that admins were good people who seldom did anything wrong, I do not know. But lately the ArbCom has proved it is willing and able to handle cases involving admins fairly, and has even handed down a number of desysoppings in particularly egregious cases. I wouldn't say ArbCom is perfect, but it does seem considerably more fair and reasonable than before. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   I think so, yes. My main reasoning is that if ArbCom can't decide it, it would ultimately end up on Jimbo's lap. That's bad for two reasons: Firstly, Jimbo is plenty busy already, and his time and energy is better spent in other areas than poring over reams of discussion and trying to pluck threads of consensus from them. Furthermore, although I have a great deal of respect for Jimbo and generally agree with his views (If I didn't I wouldn't have donated thousands of hours of my time to his project), I think that having such things decided by an elected committee of respected editors is a more wikipedian way than simply handing it off to any one person to decide. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   My answer to this is the same as my answer to the last question, and with the same reasoning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 think that's a rather easy one, and the answer is yes, service to Wikipedia does count for something. If a user has 10,000 edits and 5 of them are vandalism, that's a very different situation than a brand-new user whose first five edits are all vandalism. The latter case is almost certainly a throwaway vandal account, while the first one might be a good editor who has an occasional bad day, makes an edit or two while drunk or otherwise incapacitated, or maybe their kid brother got to the keyboard a time or two while their back was turned. At the very least there's quite a great deal more to weigh and consider, making it far less of a clear-cut case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

   That's kind of like asking what's more important in a house: the walls or the roof? Obviously without editors we'd be a barren wasteland, and without administrators we'd be an impenetrable jungle of forum-style flame wars, trolling, commercial spam, and informative articles packed with information on exactly who in Mrs. McTeague's third-period Social Studies class is gay and smells bad. In either case, we'd be absolutely useless as a reference/informational resource. I don't think an effective ArbCom would view either job as superior or more valuable. Regardless of what jobs we choose to take on, we all have the same ultimate goal of building a great free encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.)

   Overall, I'd say ArbCom has improved a great deal compared to where it was, say, two years ago, and few recent ArbCom decisions strike me as particularly far-off. I will say, though, that in the relatively recent Fresheneesz case, the ArbCom made a questionable call regarding the removal of a poll from a policy proposal. The ol' "Voting is Evil" is more of an essay (or at best a guideline) than a set-in-stone policy, and sometimes running a quick poll can be a decent way to guage where people stand on an issue. I'd say marking such a poll as non-binding (but letting it continue) would have made more sense than just deleting it outright, which the ArbCom took no issue with. It's not the biggest deal in the world, but something the ArbCom glossed over somewhat. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   I'd go with the "neither right nor wrong but acceptable" option. Everything has to start somewhere, and somebody needs to be the one to get the ball rolling. If Fred makes a mistake, just like any of us, it can be corrected. That's what wiki is all about. I don't see anything unacceptable or unjust about it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. If the community really feels that a particular non-admin belongs on the ArbCom, if they're voted in and Jimbo agrees, then so be it. However, I could see that raising some issues down the line, since so many ArbCom cases deal to some degree with Admin powers and resposibilities. I think the best choice for ArbCom is someone who has considerable experience both as an editor and as an admin, and can thus understand such issues from personal experience. The ideal ArbCom member should know what it's like to weild the ol' mop. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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've added to a few RfCs, such as the Iasson one long ago. To tell the truth I don't bother much with RfCs these days because of their utterly non-binding nature. They rarely make a significant impact and are more of a "bump in the road to an ArbCom case" than anything else. I think the mediation committee does good work, and would rather not make any binding commitments to join it at this time, though I would certainly consider it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In one sentence, what will you bring to the Arbitration Committee? Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 23:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I intend to bring hard work, a cool head, and a tough-but-fair sense of justice to ArbCom, just as I've brought the same to my Adminship role for the past year and a half. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the ArbCom elections are coming up very soon and I was wondering if you would give your public assurance not to vote or comment on other candidates. I think this will help keep friction to a minimum. Imagine how ugly it would be if two people who vehemently publicly attacked and opposed each other both ended up sitting on the ArbCom together. I think, in the best interests of decorum, these kind of conflict of interest issues should be avoided. Do you agree? --Cyde Weys 20:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That's an interesting point, but I can't say I fully agree. Among other things, I think anyone who gets enough community support to be elected probably has their head screwed on well enough that they aren't going to be at the throat of fellow members who opposed them. While I can't agree to give up my right to vote just because I'm running, I'll go for Mailer Diablo's compromise and stick with pure votes, without comment. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

My reasons for this question are three-fold.

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

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

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

• If I don't get elected, what I do won't change. Hell, if I do get elected, what I do won't change either. Becoming an admin a year and a half ago didn't change me or my wikiphilosophy one bit. In fact, I'll even go a step further than that: my principles as an editor, an admin, and as a human being go back far before I'd ever heard of a "wiki" or a "website" for that matter. I don't say anything on Wikipedia that I wouldn't say in person to your face, and I don't treat people any differently across ten thousand miles of wire than I would if they lived down the street. What you see is what you'll get, whether I'm elected Arbcom or Pope. Nothing important will change either way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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?

• That's a lot to fit into 100 words, but I'll try: (1) Yes, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and this isn't really an election in the normal sense, but a structured way of measuring consensus so Jimbo can make his choices. (2) There's no way I could provide an overview of how I feel about my fellow "candidates" in anything close to 100 words, so I'll have to let my own votes speak for themselves, adding only that some are great, most are good, and a few don't have the experience or temperment needed for ArbCom. I don't think there are any true villains among them. (3) I'm not campaigning, but I don't have anything against those who do. Since this is important, I don't fault anyone for trying to get the word out, so long as they do so within our core policies. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

• I've done any number of things wrong, although I like to think that the vast majority of them have been minor and correctable. I'm not the greatest speller or formatter on Earth, and most of my major text contributions have needed copyediting, either by myself or by others for stuff I couldn't catch. I can say with some confidence that none of my admin actions have been controversial, and I've never had an RfC or anything, conduct-related or otherwise. Even among those who have voted against me so far, no-one's had a single negative thing to say about my conduct here. I've always used my real name on Wikipedia, so I wouldn't say or do anything here that I wouldn't stand behind 100% "in real life". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

• No, I don't. As mentioned in the previous question, I've made some minor mistakes, but I think overall my contribution to Wikipedia has been a positive one, and I think Wikipedia is better-off with me than it would have been without me. I think anybody who looks back on their actions and thinks their overall contribution has been something negative (and thus worthy of apology) is probably being far too hard on themselves. We all contribute in our own way, sometimes big sometimes small, and I think 99.999% of us leave Wikipedia in an overall better state than when we found it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

• I'm not sure that editors behaving very badly would be treated any differently as part of an explosion than they would otherwise. An incorrigable vandal or troll tends to be easy to spot and is easily dealt with. I think it's important not only to get rid of users who clearly are not here to help us build an encyclopedia, but also to create an environment where vandals and trolls don't easily thrive. Vandals and trolls aren't a force of nature: they're here (or anywhere) because they want something, usually conflict and "infamy", and if they don't find it they'll move on to someplace else. I support WP:DENY and to some extent WP:RBI because they remove all the "fun" and "reward" for trolling and abuse. It might be the oldest cliche in the book, but sometimes an ounce of prevention really is worth a pound of cure. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

• Of all the questions I've been asked so far, I think this is probably my favourite. Volunteerism has been a big part of my life as far back as I can remember, and I basically see Wikipedia as yet another good cause that deserves my time and support. Life has been kind enough to me that I own my own business (I deal in rare books, for those curious) and I have few obligations and lots of time to devote to making the world a better place in various small ways. In addtion to Wikipedia I devote time to our library as well as the local animal shelter and animal refuge. So why Wikipedia? Because I believe in the concept of a free encyclopedia available to all. I believe not just in The Wikimedia Foundation and Jimbo but in every editor, together building something none of us could accomplish alone. In short, I believe wiki works, and I'm willing to take the time and effort to prove it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 10:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I find it a decent article, perhaps not quite perfect, but roughly on par with or better than other contentious "big event" articles. I'm particularly encouraged by the references section, it really does look like just about everything is backed up by a basically reliable source: I don't see any references to some random guy's blog or the xeroxed flyers handed out on the street by the guy who shouts at mailboxes. It's a tricky thing to write an article on something which has so much coverage ranging from extremely reliable all the way down: dozens of books have been written, countless thousands of newspaper and magazine articles, documentaries, TV shows, etc etc etc etc, all with varying levels of subjectivity, bias, and accuracy. Fortunately, as an encyclopedia we needn't provide a comprehensive or all-inclusive omnibus of any particular topic, nor up-to-the-minute news: an encyclopedia article should present an overview gleaned from the most-reliable sources possible, without attempting to draw conclusions or meaning from them. It's then up to the reader, armed with an overview of the basic facts, to continue their search for knowledge using any path they choose. I think the article accomplishes our goals reasonably well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you please provide a link to your actions about GNAA that some non-voters apparently disagreed with? I'm afraid the nature of your involvement wasn't obvious from the article, history, or discussion.
  • Who knows? I did vote in the AfD (to delete, of course) and then again in the Deletion Review. It's possible someone thinks I was the one who deleted it: I wasn't, but I do support its deletion 100%. Jimbo himself has said that it should be deleted, so I doubt it's coming back. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is your feeling concerning the potential vote to desysop User:MONGO? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know. My general impression of MONGO is positive, but I haven't been following the current situation closely enough to give an educated opinion on it. Give me a little time to research and I'll answer this properly later today. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• After looking closely at the circumstances surrounding the current case, I definitely see some poor or questionable decisions on MONGO's part, but I'm not at all convinced that even taken together they add up to cause for desysopping. This is probably a case that could have been better solved by some sort of probation rather than outright desysopping. ArbCom can and should desysop when there is cause to do so, but I just don't see that here. None of MONGO's offenses cited in the case are egregious enough to warrant desysopping at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]