Hello! Thanks for reading my statement; it’s truly an honor to be considered for the committee. Please feel free to ask questions and comment here. I will do my best to answer all questions to the best of my knowledge in a timely fashion. In the event that I do not answer your question completely or inadvertently miss it, please do not hesitate to ask for clarifications. Thanks! Flcelloguy ( A note?) 22:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

1. A standard question I'm posing to all the candidates. What can be done to reduce the delays in the arbitration process? Newyorkbrad 22:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   The speed of the process of cases has always been one of the major issues for the ArbCom, and there have been multiple proposals to try and speed up the process. The most feasible and immediate solutions, though, are to place more emphasis on steps in dispute resolution prior to Arbitration - mediation, for example - and to have more Arbitrators actively involved. The former would reduce the number of cases for the ArbCom; often, many cases - or even requests - can be handled via different avenues, and would effectively diminish the number of cases to consider for each Arbitrator. The latter, meanwhile, would also speed up the process - the more involved Arbitrators there are, the faster each case will proceed.

   Throughout all of this, though, we need to keep in mind the limits of the changes. Arbitrators are obviously human, and we can only demand so much of their time, given that they have jobs, outside lives, and need to eat and sleep. The benefits of adding new seats to the committee will also start to diminish after a certain number of seats have been added. Besides those changes, any major changes in the structure in the Arbitration Committee designed to speed up the process would obviously have to be considered carefully and be approved by the community first. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 23:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

2. Another standard question I'm asking everyone. If elected, do you anticipate being actively involved in drafting the actual decisions of cases? Do you have any writing experience that would be relevant to this activity? Newyorkbrad 03:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   Yes; I will commit myself fully to the task if elected, including drafting decisions when appropriate. As a mediator, I've had to communicate clearly with various parties and have effectively honed my writing skills to make concise and clear statements when needed. Outside of Wikipedia, I also have extensive experience in technical writing, although I only wish to be judged on the quality of my edits and writing on Wikipedia. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 03:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply

1. I will be asking the same three questions to every candidate. 'Arbitration' is a process of dispute resolution. If the parties to an arbitration, after it has gone to the committee, manage to resolve the dispute or any part of it themselves, would you continue the case or that part of it? If so, why, and if not, why not? Fys. “ Ta fys aym”. 23:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   I do not believe that there is one, general answer to this question: instead, I would take it on a case-by-case basis, determining in each case whether or not continuing would be beneficial to the encyclopedia. As a mediator, I've encountered various cases where one user simply "gives up" because s/he is too frustrated to continue, not because s/he agrees with the solution. In cases like this, the arbitration would continue, because although there is no longer a true dispute, the resolution was not harmonious. If, however, the parties have truly settled in an appropriate and reasonable manner, I would advocate the closure of the case if and only if the encyclopedia is not harmed by the agreement, and there would be no benefits to continuing the arbitration. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 23:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

2. What role do you believe private discussions between the parties and members of the committee should play in determining the outcome of Arbitration cases? Fys. “ Ta fys aym”. 23:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   I'm not sure whether you are inquiring about discussions between one party to another party, or between one party to the ArbCom, so I've taken the liberty of answering both questions. First, the former: I've learned through my experience as a mediator and a member of the Communications Committee that open and free communication between two parties is critical; constructive discussion, talk, and dialogue, even if in private channels, should always be encouraged. Effective communication is one of the first and most important steps of mediation, and more generally, dispute resolution. In terms of arbitration (the latter question), Arbitrators should always be available to receive communications from parties - sometimes users may wish to submit evidence which contains sensitive information, and extenuating circumstances may force a user to communicate in private. In general, though, I advocate as much transparency as possible. It is neither fair nor right for one party to be forced to argue against evidence that they cannot see, and transparency will enable more discussion and more input from the community, an integral part of arbitration. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 01:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply

3. Take a look at Wikipedia:Probation. Under what circumstances should users who have not had any restrictions on their editing imposed, be removed from probation? Fys. “ Ta fys aym”. 23:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

   When a user has demonstrated to the community that s/he is capable of editing fairly and can follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then that user should be removed from probation. The intent of probation is to allow restrictions to be placed on an editor on certain articles where s/he has been found problematic and unable to comply with Wikipedia guidelines so that that editor may continue editing in other articles and contributing in other aspects of Wikipedia. Once the user proves to the community, however, that s/he is now able to edit fairly and will not revert back to his/her former ways, the user should be removed from probation, as it will not serve any useful purpose. However, as a caveat: probations will not be removed if the removal will harm the encyclopedia in any way. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 01:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply

In what way would the ArbCom be diminished by you not being elected? I am specifically not asking for a rehash of your statement; rather, what would we miss? Jd2718 00:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply

The Arbitration Committee would be missing someone with great experience in dispute resolution and mediation in Wikipedia, as well as a trusted, knowledgeable user familiar with the Arbitration process. With over a year's experience in the Mediation Committee, I can bring a new perspective to the committee, which currently only has one former mediator. In addition, by not being elected, the Committee would be missing a chance to add another Arbitrator with the level of trust, experience, and familiarity with Arbitration and Wikipedia in general that I can offer. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 02:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply

1. As functions assigned by ArbCom, describe your view on the assignments of Oversight and Checkuser permissions, including thresholds for (or even the possibility of) new applicants. (Question from — xaosflux ^Talk 04:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC) (UTC)) reply

   Both oversight and checkuser are extremely powerful tools with great potential for harm if misused; as such, they should only go to users who are highly respected and command absolute trust from the community and Foundation. Select members of the Arbitration Committee have been assigned the priviledge as a starting point: this is logical, because all of our ArbCom members are trusted, and some may require it in the process of viewing evidence and deciding cases. However, other members of the the community who have demonstrated their need and trustworthiness have also been granted the rights, and I would support the continuation of this to other respected and trusted people from the community. The addition of new people to this group would ultimately depend on need - is there a need for more people taking care of that task at this point? - but the number of people would still be relatively low, given the sensitive nature of the tools. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 15:05, 5 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.

• The Arbitration Committee is charged with one of the most serious duties on Wikipedia; being the last and final step of dispute resolution, its decisions will ultimately impact everyone here. Voters should choose experienced, trusted, and good Wikipedians to represent them on the Committee, who can fairly hear disputes and can make reasonable and wise judgments. One of the most serious issues I feel strongly about is administrative abuse. As the number of administrators increase, there will indubitably be more administrators who misuse their tools and power, and the Arbitration Committee needs to be stringent when dealing with these administrators. Of couse, the number of such administrators compared to the number of "good" administrators is extremely low, and every administrator - myself included - will make mistakes, but for those who repeatedly misuse their rights with the intent of harming Wikipedia and have lost the confidence of the community, the ArbCom needs to take immediate action. I participated in February as a third party in the case of Freestylefrappe, an administrator at that time who repeatedly was incivil, misused his powers, and threatened other users. I provided comprehensive evidence in the case, and the ArbCom de-sysopped him, finding that he had not only abused his administrative powers, but was discourteous and unresponsive. He later unsuccessfully applied for adminship twice again under a different name, and after continuation of his disruptive activities, was banned by the community. The ArbCom was right to de-sysop him after finding a pattern of administrative abuse and misuse, and if elected, I will continue to fight against the abuse of administrative rights. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 15:49, 5 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?

• If granted this authority, I would choose to place greater emphasis on our copyright policy and make that policy clearer and more stringent. Copyright violations - both text and images - are an increasing problem on Wikipedia, and we need to address the issue immediately. Copied text (with the exception of the public domain, etc.) should not be tolerated, and people who repeatedly add such violations after being explicitly warned and informed of our policies should be blocked. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 16:02, 5 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?

• Yes; I have thoroughly read and understood the policies regarding both. I will never commit myself to something which I think I will not have enough time to dedicate myself to fully. Thus, although it is unlikely that I would volunteer for both tasks if asked, if I am granted either or both, I will pledge to do whatever it takes to respond to requests in a timely fashion. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 16:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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

• All three of those traits are critical to members of the Arbitration Committee. Integrity is the ability to be honest, to make decisions in a fair and balanced manner, to respond to all comments and requests civilly and appropriately, and to do whatever you think is right. As I pledged in my candidate statement, I will always do whatever is right and whatever is best for the encyclopedia and the project. Accountability is another crucial trait; it is the ability to take responsibility for your actions and acknowledge mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes - myself included - but it is the ability to recognize those mistakes, apologize to those you may have violated, and to bear the consequences of your actions that distinguishes those with accountability and those who do not. Finally, transparency is also important. Because the Arbitration Committee represents and serves the community, it is crucial to have opinions, feedback, and input from the community, an integral part of Arbitration. Without transparency, the community would be unable to participate and understand how the decisions are being made, and the Arbitration Committee would be unable to truly serve and represent the community. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 16:23, 5 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?

• As long as the humor does not distract from or impede upon the ultimate goals of the project - to write and build an encyclopedia - and as long as Wikipedia does not degenerate into a site that exists solely for the purpose of entertainment, then humor in the appropriate venues should be tolerated, if not encouraged. While some attempts at humor have gone too far, damaging the encyclopedia in the process, most others have been within the proper boundaries, and have played a crucial role in defining both Wikipedians and the Wikipedia community. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 02:00, 11 November 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?) :-)

The questions were of course complex, but easy questions do not accomplish much compared to difficult ones, so thank you for your time and questions. Please let me know if I haven't answered any of them clearly, and please feel free to ask follow-up questions or more general questions. Thank you! Flcelloguy ( A note?) 23:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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?

   This is an extremely tricky and complex question you raise. The case you cited above is even more complex, with underlying legal problems and consequences. However, the basic concept of policies and guidelines are clear: the community must be responsible for approving proposals, except in the extremely rare cases of legal action, where the Foundation would obviously be bound by law. In addition, the Arbitration Committee serves the community, not the other way around. Thus, I would generally be opposed to the Arbitration Committee deciding whether or not "consensus" by the community has been reached or not. Discussion should be held and continued by the community, and it's up to the community to decide whether or not something has reached the level to become either a policy or guideline. Often times, in contentious issues, additional discussion and debates over the merits of the proposed arguments will result in the deadlock being resolved; I've seen countless examples of this as a mediatior: two parties initially vehemently disagreeing with each other, but eventually acquiesing and agreeing after renewed discussion. Of course, as noted by many others, the Arbitration Committee, as the last step of dispute resolution, can and should look into conduct relating to cases such as this. I also believe strongly that there is always the possibility of extenuating circumstances in any situation, and the Arbitration Committee should always keep an open mind when considering such cases and do whatever is right for the encyclopedia. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 00:27, 8 November 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?

   The role of bureaucrats is to judge whether or not community consensus to promote a certain candidate has been achieved; their actions (i.e. promotions), just like administrative actions, should fall under the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee: otherwise, there would be no clear judicial body to address such issues of (however unlikely) bureaucratic abuse. However, because of the hierarchy that has been put in place, such reviews would be extremely rare and would not occur unless there was either clear abuse of powers or a strong lack of trust by the community in the bureaucrat. Bureaucrats are, after all, directly responsible to the community and entrusted with the power of making the final judgment call of what the community has decided; whenever a bureaucrat clearly abuses this power and subsequently loses the trust of the community, the Arbitration Committee should have the right to review the bureaucrat's actions. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 00:58, 8 November 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?

   The most recent example that comes up in my mind is in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano. In general, though, users who have a long history of positive contributions will be shown more leniency than others who have long histories of disruption. We are all human; we all make mistakes. Even the best of us will have our "off" days when we do something wrong, or commit an error. As long as there is no pattern of repeated lapses in judgment and a general trend of positive work and contributions, the Arbitration Committee should consider that editor more leniently than another editor who has never been productive, has never shown any inclination of doing useful work benefitting the project, and has a pattern of repeated misbehavior. This, however, should not give experienced Wikipedians the "right" to commit such acts; instead, it simply takes into account the occassional mistake expected from all humans. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 01:13, 8 November 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.

   Both groups, making the assumption that a person has to be either one or the other, are critical and integral to the project: just like two buttresses supporting a load, if one is removed, the other (and the entire structure) will collapse. Ultimately, though, we need to keep in mind that all work is done to benefit the encyclopedia: writing benefits the encyclopedia by adding and revising content, and administrative work benefits the encyclopedia by providing and maintaining the structure to house the encyclopedia, metaphorically speaking. However, neither is any more valuable than the other, and the Arbitration Committee should not attempt to judge whether one editor is more valuable than another based on the nature of each editors' work. Instead, the Arbitration Committee should consider both types of users equally experienced and valuable, and then assess the nature of the misbehavior or alleged infringement equally, ceteris paribus. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 01:28, 8 November 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.)

   Though I am hesitant to cite a specific case and predict how I would have voted, I will still discuss two previous cases where I disagreed with some of the solutions, or would have supported alternate proposals. Note that I was tangentially involved in both of the cases: in the first case, participating as a third party and providing evidence, and in the latter case, later (after the conclusion of the case) becoming one of the mentors of the editor in question. Obviously, if I had been involved and had been an Arbitrator at the time, I would have recused myself. In the first case, Freestylefrappe, I would have gone further than de-sysopping. With the evidence provided for clear and systematic abuse and incivility by Freestylefrappe, I would have supported long-term civility parole and even a one-week ban for Freestylefrappe's constant disruptions. Because his actions were harmful to the encyclopedia, and his violations not limited to administrative rights, the revocation of his admin rights did not solve the problem, as later demonstrated by Freestylefrappe being blocked several more times (under undisclosed sockpuppet accounts) and then being banned by the community. The second case is Maoririder, involving an eager and enthusiastic user who created multitudes of one-sentence stubs offering minimal information, which many people felt was a problem. His response to the issue was also part of the case; although he responded and showed minimal improvement, he continued his ways even after being asked to stop many times, and often created sockpuppets - easily detected from his distinctive stub-writing style - to avoid detection. The ArbCom, feeling that blocking a good-faith editor would not be appropriate, placed him under mentorship. Because I was a member of the Mediation Committee, I was asked to be a mentor for him, and agreed. Despite the best efforts of myself and other editors, he never showed much improvement and reverted back to his previous methods. A more appropriate remedy would have explicitly allowed several mentors, meaning that mentorship would have a greater chance of being more successful. Each mentor would have less to keep to up with, and multiple voices would mean more effectiveness in mentoring. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 02:11, 8 November 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?

   Ideally, all Arbitrators would be actively involved in drafting these decisions. However, because of time constraints, Fred ends up writing most of them. There is nothing inherently wrong with this - it is better to have Fred write them, then to have all of the decisions left unwritten - and I have enough faith to trust that other ArbCom members, when they think appropriate, will add drafts of their own, but it would be more appropriate to have input from all Arbitrators to ensure a wider spectrum of views. As I stated above, I intend to be actively involved in this process if I am elected, and will never hesitate to speak out if I feel something is wrong or is not in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 02:22, 8 November 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) 17:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Though there are many exceptions to my point of view (including some people in this race), I feel that administrators, in general, will be more effective Arbitrators than those without administrative rights. This is not to say that a non-administrator would not be welcome or be ineffective; if someone has proven themself to be worthy of the seat and has earned the trust of the community, then that person should rightfully serve on the ArbCom, and could very well make an excellent Arbitrator. However, it is more difficult to judge administrative actions and potential abuse of administrative rights when you have never used such tools before, and the lack of administrative tools also usually means less experience overall, especially in those areas requiring admin rights. Experience in those areas is critical, as the ArbCom will be asked to examine many cases pertaining to those areas. As for "representation", I don't think of the ArbCom as something that necessarily represents each "faction" of the community - instead, it serves the entire community, and serves the entire encyclopedia. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 02:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply

If elected to the ArbCom, you would most likely need to leave the MedCom, given the conflicting duties affecting the two committees, coupled with the fact that many mediations cases do go on to arbitration, where you would potentially need to recuse yourself. Do you feel that you would be able to maintain a role on MedCom and ArbCom effectively serving on both? If not, how would you feel about leaving MedCom, given it's understaffing and backlog?

If I am elected, I would shift from being an active mediator to a Mediator Emeriti, which lists all mediators who aren't currently active and includes several past and present Arbitrators. Due to the conflicts you name above, as well as the time constraints, I do not believe it feasible for anyone, myself included, to actively participate in both the Mediation Committee and Arbitration Committee. As for the Mediation Committee, I feel confident that the other mediators - including you - will continue our task, and with the recent (hopefully) return of Essjay, as well as several other highly-qualified applicants looking to join the committee, the Mediation Committee will continue serving Wikipedia as a key part of dispute resolution. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 03:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Q: 1. Who are you?

A: Who am I? I am 24601... On a more serious note, though, I am Flcelloguy; whether I am John or Jane in "real life" should be inconsequential. Judge me on my actions here on Wikipedia; determine whether or not I will be a good Arbitrator based on my edits, not on whether I am John or Jane. Thanks for your understanding.

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

A: Neither. Similarly to the above question, I wish to be judged on my actions and edits, not on my age. Though I am not sensitive or extremely private regarding that number, I feel strongly in the concept that we should be evaluated on our strengths and weaknesses on Wikipedia, not on our date of births. I could be 5, 55, or (heaven forbid) 555, but I will respectfully decline to provide any further information.

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

A: Though I would take this issue on a case-by-case basis, as the contexts for each case will vary, in general, the answer is no. Please see my prior responses addressing this issue in more detail. However, throughout all of this we need to keep in mind that the role of the Arbitration Committee is to represent and serve the community, and our priority is to do whatever is best for the encyclopedia. I will always uphold those two basic tenets while deciding on a case.

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

Neutral point-of-view, one of Wikipedia's core values, is appropriate for an encyclopedia, while scientific point-of-view is less appropriate and fitting. An encyclopedia is, by definition, a tome (or website!) that addresses and covers all significant events, people, places, etc. Our job is to inform in a nonbiased manner; we don't advocate for any of the article subjects. Thus, having a neutral point-of-view allows us to effectively cover all encyclopedic topics with as little bias as possible. Anything that is noteworthy and fits within our policies is therefore included.

Scientific point-of-view, meanwhile, would exclude a significant number of articles that are indubitably encyclopedic. Religion, for instance, is based on faith, not science; a SPOV would dictate that such an article be deleted or removed. In addition, an SPOV would also violate some of our other basic principles. We give coverage to any encyclopedic topics, which are not necessarily scientific; a SPOV would discourage such non-scientific articles from being created or being included. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 02:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply

2. Why should we risk losing your contributions to the Signpost by putting you on ArbCom?

Though I've enjoyed contributing to the Signpost, I feel that my time and talents (forgive my lack of modesty) would be better served on the Arbitration Committee. The Signpost has grown and matured extensively since I first started contributing, and both Ral315 and Michael Snow, the current and former editors-in-chief, respectively, have done fantastic jobs. I feel confident that the Signpost would continue to be successful if I were elected. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 03:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

As many others have pointed out, we cannot portend the future; I'm sure all of the committee members who resigned did not enter their terms knowing or expecting to resign later. However, I would not volunteer to do something to which I will not or would be unable to dedicate myself to fully, and am thus committed to serving the entirety of the term, if elected. Resignation would stem only from a few (and hopefully rare) situations with extenuating circumstances: an emergency of some sort that would seriously inhibit the amount of time I could spend or permanently damage my judgment, or a complete, absolute, and total loss of faith by the entire community in myself. Hopefully neither will ever occur. (Note that the latter situation wouldn't stem from simply "negative feelings from others"; all people will receive such criticism and "negative feelings", and it would take a total lack of faith in the community - which, after all, the committee members serve - to spark a resignation.) Flcelloguy ( A note?) 04:34, 12 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?

Ultimately, the Arbitration Commitee needs to consider whether the statement fits within our policies - in other words, whether it is verifiable, based on accurate and reliable sources, and continues to make the article neutral and unbiased. Personal expertise, while potentially helpful in understanding the situation and case, should not impact the decision greatly; the fact that an Arbitrator is familiar with a topic and has studied it in the past does not necessarily mean that the statement is any more nonbiased than another statement with which the Arbitrator is unfamiliar with. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 04:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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 05:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, I will continue active editing, and I will not lose interest in contributing to articles. The freeness of editing, contributing, and writing was what drew me here initially, and what continues to make Wikipedia a great project; being an Arbitrator would not change my love for editing, writing, and helping out whenever I can. I have also always been available for advice and assistance, and have never hesitated to help a newcomer or another Wikipedian. Being an Arbitrator will not change this; I will always be available to users for help, assistance and advice, as well as for feedback, questions, and comments. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 02:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Open-mindedness and the ability to revise one's own position in response to new evidence seems to me to be an important factor in considering ArbCom cases. Can you please provide an example of a situation where your initial judgement of a situation turned out to be wrong, and show how you dealt with it? Guy ( Help!) 14:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Open-mindedness is always important; the ability to fairly hear and consider all possibilities, as well as being able to recognize and modify, when appropriate, one's judgment upon additional evidence, is crucial, and is something I constantly do as a mediator. The ability to recognize mistakes, take responsibility, and apologize and rectify errors is also related to this trait, and is something I've demonstrated in various situations. For example, I once mistakingly reverted a removal of vandalism with rollback after jumping at what I perceived was vandalism (when it was in fact removal of vandalism). Immediately realizing my mistake, I reverted myself, blocked the vandal (who had placed a graphic image on a high-profile article), and then apologized to the editor who had noticed my initial (and incorrect) revert. Another time I misinterpreted a diff, and blocked another editor for what I perceived as a 3RR violation. After he brought this to my attention, I immediately unblocked him and apologized to him, assuring him that I would be more careful in the future. I've made my share of mistakes - just like any other human - but I've always taken responsibility for my actions and will be the first to rectify and apologize for any errors and mistakes.

Another example of open-mindedness came after hearing new evidence, arguments, and discussion following discussion on implementing semi-protection late last year. The proposal at the time was heavily discussed, and though I initially had strong reservations, after much discussion some of my concerns were alleviated. Despite this, though, I was one of the few editors to oppose the proposal when the straw poll was conducted because of a few remaining concerns about the proposal and its implications. I've since been pleasantly surprised and delighted with semi-protection, and see it as a valuable tool and development. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 04:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm asking these questions all applicants:

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

If an error in judgment has occured, I would be the first to immediately take responsibility for my actions, apologize, and rectify the mistake without delay, doing whatever is right and whatever benefits the encyclopedia. I will always be accountable for my actions, and though I hope any such errors of judgment will be rare, I will always stand up and fix the problem. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 01:56, 19 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?

Though I would attempt to placate the community by explaining the actions and listening carefully to everyone's opinions and feedback, I would still follow through with the decision, if it is indubitably the correct one. Being able to do what is right, even if unpopular, is crucial to all Wikipedians, and especially Arbitrators, who are charged with ultimately serving the community and the encyclopedia. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 02:19, 19 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 complex question that's impossible to answer accurately. Wikipedia is bound by all of its policies and guidelines, and all of them are intricately linked to ensure accurate, verifiable, and encyclopedic articles. In addition, it's also difficult to convey what I look at first when examining an article, as I don't run through each policy/guideline one by one in a sort of mental-checklist. Instead, I consider the article as a whole, and using this holistic view encompassing our policies and guidelines, I then make an educated and researched decision on the article. However, despite all of this, I will still attempt to place the above policies/guidelines in some sort of order.

First would be our copyright policy ( WP:C). Wikipedia needs to follow the law, and no tolerance should be showed to copyright violations; such violating text and images should be removed immediately. The implications of not taking care of copyright violations are dire, and could place the Foundation in serious legal jeopardy. Besides the legal reasons, using copyrighted texts also severely undermines our goal of creating a free encyclopedia. Next, verifiability ( WP:V), neutral point-of-view ( WP:NPOV) and no original research ( WP:NOR), the three content policies, are extremely important. They define how articles should be written, and ensure that we have non-biased, accurate, and comprehensive articles, encyclopedic pillars needed for Wikipedia. After those three policies comes what Wikipedia is not ( WP:NOT) - it also is a critical policy that helps define our encyclopedic articles by further clarifying what should not be placed in Wikipedia as articles. The final three remaining policies and guidelines in the list - notability ( WP:N), reliable sources ( WP:RS), and biographies of living persons ( WP:BLP) - are placed in this position not because of a lack of importance, but because they are covered in other policies already. Something that is verifiable needs to have reliable sources, and a biographical article on someone living should be held to the same high-standards defined in the above policies. In other words, the former policies serve the what, and the latter policies serve the how. Though important and critical, the final three are already covered or implied by the other policies and guidelines, and thus serve primarily to clarify, place emphasis on, and expound on aspects of the other policies and guidelines. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 02:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

I've already written my answer in detail, encrypted it, and uploaded it to a userpage. I'll give you a week to think about this case before revealing my solutions. 20:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a quite interesting, but vague, situation you've described. More details are required to make an accurate judgment; for example, how was this "sneaky revert" accomplished? A rollback? Removal? Deletion? What was the extent of these "rude comments"? Do any of these editors have a history of previous disruptive behavior? Do the comments and logs indicate good faith, or do they possibly show something else? Without any further specifics, though, I'm afraid the best I can do is to comment generally and holistically about the situation, instead of hypothesizing on possible remedies and findings. I will never rush to conclusions without understanding and fully comprehending a situation, and the lack of specifics and details in this hypothetical situation prevents me from doing so.

The general situation, though, could have been avoided with more communication. Misunderstandings arise when there is a lack of communication, and promoting dialogue between people - a critical part of a mediator's job - will reduce the number of such conflicts. Even as the conflict escalated, steps could have been taken to prevent further aggravation. Mediation could have cleared up any differences, and open sharing of information and thoughts would have prevented much of the blocking and unblocking. As for the Arbitration case, though, I would carefully examine all evidence and the situation - with all of its details - thoroughly. From the precursury description you provided, though, it seems that most of the involved parties made mistakes. Editors A and B erred by not being civil and polite and not following our dispute resolution process, which most likely would have several methods to resolve the conflict on article X. Administrators C and D, in addition, should have communicated openly with one another from the beginning, preventing the blocking/unblocking spectacle, and should have remained civil with each other. They also blocked M, N, P and Q (aside: where's O?) for "object[ing] loudly", which may or may not have been called for, depending on the actual details. Dissent, especially loud protest and objections, isn't something that should be blockable, unless the protests are excessively disruptive and violate our other policies. As for the other editors and administrators (mainly F, G, and H), their actions would require more details in order to properly evaluate; simply saying that F blocks and G unblocks does not give any trace of the surrounding situation and details of the scene and discussion.

I hope I've answered your situation fully, and I would be happy to clarify or expand on my answer if needed or requested. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 03:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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

Administrative abuse, a topic which I briefly covered above, is a serious matter for the Arbitration Committee to consider. Though the vast majority of administrators do not misuse or abuse their rights, and most errors are simply infrequent mistakes, if there is a clear and consistent pattern of administrative abuse, then the Arbitration Committee needs to be stringent with those administrators. Misuse of blocking is a serious violation, and anyone found to have consistently violated our policies or acted in a way intended to damage Wikipedia should not be tolerated while that behavior continues. However, I would have to carefully examine each situation on a case-by-case basis and thoroughly understand the conflict and situations before making judgment on any decision.

As for "protect[ing] the sysop no matter what", I hope I've made clear that consistent abuse and violations by anyone, whether or not administrators, will not be tolerated. Anyone damaging Wikipedia should be stopped, regardless of whether that editor is an administrator or not, and appropriate actions should be taken. In other words, the well-being of the project always comes first, and if someone is harming that, then the necessary remedies will be applied. I will always do what is right and best for the encyclopedia. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 04:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia Board members as well as stewards are now required to make their real names known. Additionally, almost all current ArbComm members either use their real name as their userid or have allowed their real names to become known which adds to the transparency and accountability of the ArbComm. Are you willing to reveal your real name? Balla Laika 23:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC) reply

This is similar to a question asked above. I've always been a strong supporter of Wikipedia's openness for editing and contributing; it shouldn't matter whether you are logged-in, editing from a large internet service provider, or have any "rights" - anyone wishing to contribute productively, within reasonable and legal bounds, should be welcomed. Thus, it shouldn't matter whether I am John or Jane, as that name is inconsequential: I wish to only be judged on my edits and actions here on Wikipedia. Thus, though I am committed to accountability on Wikipedia, I am going to respectfully decline to provide any further information. Thanks for your understanding! Flcelloguy ( A note?) 18:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Do you think there should be an age requirement for ArbCom? Anomo 11:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply

No - as long as Arbitrators are capable, effective, and can perform the job well, then age should be inconsequential. Candidates should be judged on their actions and merits here on Wikipedia; while age is sometimes a factor of such actions and maturity, it is by no means the sole determinant. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 03:53, 28 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 11:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply

In general, dormant accounts which do not pose a threat should not be blocked; there are many exceptions, though, including massive account creation for widespread vandalism. I'm hesitant to comment on any specific blocks, however, because we do not know the precise situation: there could be deleted edits and non-visible actions (i.e. misusing password reminder requests, although blocking at that time wouldn't have stopped the requests). In addition, if it is clear that an account is used solely to vandalize Wikipedia with the intent of destroying our project, then those accounts should be blocked immediately. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 04:04, 28 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 11:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Blocked users are still Wikipedians; unless blocked indefinitely (or for an extended period) or banned, they will still be able to edit after their block expires or is lifted, and the deletion of user and user talk pages for these users should be discouraged. As for indefinitely blocked and banned editors, I'm also against the deletion of their user talk pages: in general, user talk pages should be kept for both transparency reasons, allowing other editors to see previous communication and the history of the page, and to have a means of communication with the editor. Unless the page is being misused or the person is being disruptive with the editing of the user talk page, then it is always better to have some means of communication for the editor to explain any unusual circumstances or extenuating conditions that would change the situation. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 02:41, 29 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 11:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply

On article talk pages, active discussions should not be removed unless there is an extenuating circumstance calling for its removal (i.e. legal reasons, etc.) Archiving should only be done when the discussion is no longer active, and the article talk page is becoming too big and would benefit from archiving. On user talk pages, there is a bit more latitude. However, in general, the removal or archiving of discussions with the intent of hiding the conversation should be discouraged. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 02:49, 29 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 11:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply

This is somewhat related to your question number three; in general, I would discourage the protection of user talk pages, even for banned users, because of the possibility of extenuating circumstances that s/he may not be able to communicate in other means. Unless the user talk page is being used abusively or being edited disruptively, then the page should remain unprotected. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 02:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

6. Why do you feel in the past when in a conflict in ArbCom between non-admins and administrators that ArbCom has always sided with the admins? Anomo 11:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply

This isn't always true; the Arbitration Committee judges each case carefully on its merits, and as an Arbitrator, I would continue doing so. There have been quite a few cases where an administrator has been found to have violated Wikipedia policies. To answer your question, though: in general, administrators tend to be more familiar with Wikipedia policies and tend to have more experience, as they have passed through requests for adminship. This would mean that in general (again, an extremely wide statement with many exceptions), administrators should be the ones most aware of policies, and therefore not be violating those policies. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 03:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

In one sentence, what will you bring to the Arbitration Committee? Dfrg.m s c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 23:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I will bring my experience in dispute resolution, as an editor, and as an administrator, my continued wholehearted dedication to the project, and my best efforts to do whatever is right for Wikipedia. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 04:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello, the ArbCom elections are coming up very soon and I was wondering if you would give your public assurance not to vote or comment on other candidates. I think this will help keep friction to a minimum. Imagine how ugly it would be if two people who vehemently publicly attacked and opposed each other both ended up sitting on the ArbCom together. I think, in the best interests of decorum, these kind of conflict of interest issues should be avoided. Do you agree? -- Cyde Weys 20:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'd say that you ultimately reserve the right to excercise your vote. It should be already understood by all respected and high-esteemed candidates that by the end of this election, there should be no hard feelings regardless of supports or opposes. As from my observations at the January elections, hard feelings usually come not from the votes, but from the comments that are associated with the votes. Henceforth, I think restraining to comment in your votes is the best way to go. - Good luck and best regards, Mailer Diablo 22:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you both for your questions and comments. First, while I appreciate your attempt to let the candidate answer, Cyde, I've restored Mailer Diablo's comment, as I feel that all good-faith comments and questions should be welcome. With that being said, I will reserve the right to vote on other candidates. If I do vote, the votes will be well-educated, researched, and informed, and will be based on whether or not I feel the candidate is suitable for a seat on the ArbCom. If elected (or even if I'm not elected), I will never hold "grudges" against anyone, and I have full confidence that my fellow candidates and Wikipedians will also not hold any such grudges. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 23:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Based on your background, any prior conflicts, etc., are there any areas or topics where you anticipate receiving requests for recusal, or where you might consider self-recusal? If so, what are those areas and how would you decide whether to recuse? Thanks, TheronJ 19:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I would recuse whenever I feel unable to hear a case fairly or without bias, or when the community, as a whole, feels that I would not be impartial in the case. The primary reason for recusal that I can forsee right now is if participants in a mediation case which I mediated went to the Arbitration Committee; even if the case was not related to the topics discussed in mediation, I would still recuse. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 04:09, 5 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 not elected, I would continue my dedication to the project as an editor, administrator, and mediator. (Please let me know if this didn't answer your question fully, and I will be happy to elaborate.) Flcelloguy ( A note?) 03:48, 7 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]]?

As a whole, though there are some aspects that could have been improved, this election has run smoothly, thanks to the hard work of multiple Wikipedians. There are many well-qualified and respected candidates, and the community has a truly diverse field of people to choose from. The use of "campaign banners" in general should be discouraged; though limited numbers that are not used inappropriately are acceptable, we need to be careful of future elections turning nasty with negative and disruptive "campaigning". Flcelloguy ( A note?) 04:00, 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 addressed this issue and described some of my previous mistakes in a similar question above; we all make mistakes, as we are all humans. It is critical, however, to be able to recognize mistakes, take responsibility for your actions, apologize, and to rectify the situation as soon as possible. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 00:46, 8 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.

I will always take responsibility for my actions and apologize whenever I have made a mistake or am in the wrong. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 00:55, 8 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.

Though I'm not sure I fully understand your question, in general, I would always do what is right for Wikipedia; editors who violate our policies with intent to harm the encyclopedia would not be tolerated. Please let me know if this didn't adequately answer your question. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 01:11, 8 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.

I briefly covered this topic above; I'm here to improve the encyclopedia in any way possible, whether as an editor, administrator, or a mediator. It was the freeness of editing, writing, and contributing, as well as the ultimate goal of creating a free encyclopedia, that drew me here initially, and it is this love that continues to drive me and inspire me to better the project. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 01:17, 8 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 10:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply

As a whole, the article seems to be balanced and satisfactory, especially for such a high-profile and potentially controversial subject. The large (and necessary) number of references and the appropriately-sized external links section were two positive aspects that caught my eye; for the latter, it's always tough to curb the number of extraneous external links for such a high-profile and controversial topic, and the hidden comments seem to have helped limit the number of additions in that section. (Most of the current links are also extremely appropriate and fitting.) There is always room for improvement, though, just like in any other article: a few sections currently having only one or two basic sentences need to be expanded, and other sections require a bit more work than others in terms of proofreading and editing. As for the state of the article, I remain confident that editors and dedicated Wikipedians will be able to improve this article even more in the future, and hopeful that if everyone continues to work together, keeping in mind all of our policies, the current dispute will not escalate to the Arbitration Committee. If it does, just like in any other case, I would carefully consider the situation and always do what is best for Wikipedia. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 01:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply

What is your feeling concerning the potential vote to desysop User:MONGO? User:Zoe| (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I am extremely hesitant to comment on any specifics right now in the arbitration case, primarily because I have not gone through and thoroughly analyzed the evidence and situation. In addition, the case remains open right now, and there exists a possibility that the elected Arbitrators in this election may be asked to look at the case or even hear an appeal. Not only do I not want to jump to conclusions without fully understanding the situation, but I do not feel that it would be proper or appropriate for someone who has the possibility of hearing the case later on to comment on it prematurely. However, in general, if there was a large outcry from the community regarding a proposed decision, I would carefully re-examine the situation again, taking into consideration the community's opinion, and make an informed and educated decision in the case to do whatever is best for the encyclopedia and project. Also, feedback and suggestions from the community would always be appreciated, and I would always take time to respond to them appropriately. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 04:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Would you please explain a bit more why it is not necessary to know who is arbitrating? In earlier answers you explain you would prefer to remain anonymous in this role. Thanks in advance for your thoughts. Susanlesch 00:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC). reply

Withdrawing the question. Sorry I am not quicker to understand. Best wishes. Susanlesch 14:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC) reply

No problem, and thanks for the question. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have any further questions or need clarification. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 15:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply