It is true that I've only been a contributing member of Wikipedia for about 4 months now, but I feel I still have a lot to offer the project. Wikipedia represents cooperative collaberation, but that collaberation works best in an environment where there is a good set of guidelines on submission principles.

The other issue is arbitration on a schedule. Effective arbitration is not tardy arbitration. I'll try to help in moving the arbitration process at a less leisurely pace. --Dogbreathcanada 22:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchism page

How would you deal with the situation on the anarchism page? Harrypotter 18:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd suggest that the Anarchism page be used as an overview for the various tenets of Anarchy as a whole, and then sup-pages be created for each of those tenets. If Anarcho-Capitalists cannot co-exist on the same page of information with the Anarcho-non-Capitalists, then each need their own subject pages where they can describe their philosophy to their hearts content without interference from rival anarcho philosophies. --Dogbreathcanada 21:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Improv, who is also a candidate for the arbitration committee, has placed the following statement on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy):

I am concerned about templates surviving AfD that appear to contrast with established policy. In particular, I feel that these templates are Poisoning the well when it comes for how we treat our fellow wikipedians. There are circumstances where knowing too much about one's neighbours politicises how one deals with them. This is, to an extent, unavoidable in society, but wearing signs of hate as badges on our shoulders takes what is a small problem that we can usually deal with into the realm of being damaging to the community. Already, there have been signs of people refusing to help each other because they are on different ends of a political spectrum -- this seems likely to get worse if this trend continues. Some people cry that this is an attack on their first amendment rights (if they're American, anyhow), but that doesn't apply here because Wikipedia is not the U.S. government -- it is a community that has always self-regulated, and more importantly it is an encyclopedia with a goal of producing encyclopedic content. We have a tradition of respecting a certain amount of autonomy on userpages, but never absolute autonomy. We might imagine, for example, templates with little swastikas saying "this user hates jews". I am not saying that such a thing would be morally equivalent to this template against scientology, but rather that we should aim to minimise that aspect of ourselves, at least on Wikipedia, so we can make a better encyclopedia. The spirit of NPOV does not mean that we cannot have strong views and still be wikipedians, but rather that we should not wear signs of our views like badges, strive not to have our views be immediately obvious in what we edit and how we argue, and fully express ourselves in other places (Myspace? Personal webpage?) where it is more appropriate and less divisive. [1]

I am inviting all candidates, including Improv, to expand on this theme on their questions pages. Do you agree that this is a cause for concern as we move into 2006? How do you see the role of the arbitration committee in interpreting the interpretation of Wikipedia policy in the light of this concern? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]