Candidates are advised to answer each of these questions completely but concisely. Candidates may refuse to answer any questions that they do not wish to, with the understanding, however, that not answering a question may be perceived negatively by the community.

Note that disclosure of your account history, pursuant to the ArbCom selection and appointment policy, must be made in your opening statement, and is not an optional question.

2. What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, will you bring to the Arbitration Committee if elected?

   Besides what I listed in my statement, I bring a willingness to listen first and judge later. The evidence needs to be presented before any sort of sanction is placed on the table. I bring a willingness to admit that I was wrong. We all make mistakes; I don't want to be the arb who sinks their heals into the ground and claims that they are correct in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary.

4. What experience have you had with the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes, both formal and informal? Please discuss any arbitration cases, mediations, or other dispute-resolution forums in which you have participated.

   One of my main areas of contact with the DR process has been as a clerk of the committee. Outside of that, my workshop proposals for the Doncram case are close to the final decision that arbcom passed. For that case I recused as a clerk and committed myself to reading all of the evidence. I admit that my locus of the dispute FOF was off. I also was one of the triumvirate of closers for the Manning requested move. There I read all of the statements and joined with three other admins to come to a closing.

6. Every case is evaluated on its own merits ... but as a general matter, do you think you would you side more often with those who support harsher sanctions (bans, topic-bans, desysoppings, etc.) against users who have misbehaved, or would you tend to be on the more lenient side? What factors might generally influence your votes on sanctions?

   I hope that I am able to split things down the middle. I am in more favor for topic bans and more nuanced remedies that try to solve the problem without kicking people off the project. Many editors who have issues in one area of the project have the ability to be very helpful and productive editors in others. But, bans are a tool in the tool box to deal with gross misconduct, recidivism, disregarding sanctions, etc.

8. Please disclose any conflicting interests, on or off Wikipedia, that might affect your work as an arbitrator (such as by leading you to recuse in a given type of case).

   My main areas of editing (Folk Music, Punk Rock, and Nuns) are peaceful and haven't ended with an ANI thread so the chance of them boiling up to an arbcom case is very slim. I was one of the directors of the, ill fated, featured sounds process and the breakup of the process was not a pleasant event.

10. Arbitrators are elected for two-year terms. Are there any circumstances you anticipate might prevent you from serving for the full two years?

    I am a junior in college and next year I am writing my thesis. My school work will always come first.

12. Identify a recent case or situation that you believe the ArbCom handled well, and one you believe it did not handle well. For the latter, explain what you might have done differently.

    The Tea Party case was handled horribly. Mediation shouldn't take place half way through a case. It is a step that disputes should go through before they reach arbcom. The " lets ban everyone and let god sort them out in the end" motion also ranks among one of the worst ideas that I have seen in a very long time. We can't hold people faultless yet ban them from a topic area at the same time.

14. The ArbCom has accepted far fewer requests for arbitration (case requests) recently than it did in earlier years. Is this a good or bad trend? What criteria would you use in deciding whether to accept a case?

    I think it is a decent trend. I would look for a dispute to have gone through several levels of DR before coming to arbcom. Many of the " Go directly to Arbcom. Do not pass GO, do not collect $200" type requests could have been solved by mediation or a RfC.

16. What changes, if any, would you support in ArbCom's procedures? How would you try to bring them about?

    Simplification. From my time as a clerk I have found that the arbs don't even know the full process. Also, I would overturn this disaster. How serious is a serious backlog? How time sensitive is a time sensitive issue? I don't know and neither does anyone else. It turns AUSC members into people who sit on their hands while they are waiting for maybe one case every 6+ months. If we are going to maintain the body, we might as well let its members be useful.

18. What changes, if any, would you support in ArbCom's overall role within the project? Are responsibilities properly divided today among the ArbCom, the community, and the WMF office? Does the project need to establish other governance committees or mechanisms in addition to ArbCom?

    I would like to add 2-3 non arb to the BASC. Not only would this elevate some of the traditional work of the arbs, it would give the community a voice in the committee's decisions to lift bans.

20. It is often stated that "the Arbitration Committee does not create policy, and does not decide content disputes." Has this been true in practice? Should it be true? Are there exceptions?

    Yes, this has been true for the most part. And, it should be true without any exceptions. Arbcom can create a forum where the community works out an issue for itself but the committee can't make a content ruling.

22. What role, if any, should ArbCom play in implementing or enforcing the biographies of living persons policy?

    Arbcom can deal with the conduct issues on a BLP (battleground behavior, defamation, incivility) but it can not deal with content issues. Since BLPs have the ability to ruin people's lives, I am a supporter of stricter sanctions for people who break policy on BLPs.

24. Sitting arbitrators are generally granted automatic access to the checkuser and oversight userrights on request during their terms. If elected, will you request these permissions? How will you use them?

    I would continue to have CU and OS attached to my account and I would use the bits cautiously but when they are needed.

26. Unfortunately, many past and present arbitrators have been subject to "outing" and off-wiki harassment during their terms. If this were to happen to you, would you be able to deal with it without damage to your real-world circumstances or to your ability to serve as an arbitrator?

    Yes. The fact that I am a wikipedian can't be described in an All American Rejects song

28. Should the Arbitration Committee retain records that include non-public information (such as checkuser data and users' real-life identities) after the matter the information originally related to is addressed? Why or why not?

    Yes

30. Under what circumstances, if any, should the Arbitration Committee take action against a user based on evidence that has not been shared with that user? That has not been shared with the community as a whole?

    I can't see a reason to reveal CU info and I can't see a reason to Streisand outting information.

Please ask your individual questions here. While there is no limit on the number of questions that may be asked, please try to keep questions relevant. Try to be as clear and concise as possible, and avoid duplicating questions that have already been asked.

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#{{ACE Question
|Q=Your question
|A=}}

I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide. There is a large correlation between the answers to the questions and what the final result is in the guide, but I also consider other factors as well. Also, I may be asking about specific things outside the scope of ArbCom; your answers would be appreciated regardless.

The questions are similar to those I asked in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012; if you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those, but make sure the question has not been reworded.

2. What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?

   We are going back to 2011? There seem to be several cases this year that follow the same pattern. This is what I said last year and I still agree: " Arbcom should not take that long to decide a case. There was not a vast amount of public evidence and the workshop proposals don't seem that different from a normal case. If a drafting arb knows that it will take them a while to submit a draft, they should hand the case off to another person."

4. What is the purpose of a WikiProject? b) What is the relationship between stewardship of WikiProject articles and WP:OWN? c) What should be done when there is conflict between WikiProject or subject "experts" and the greater community?

   A wikproject is a space for a group of wikipedians to collaborate on improving a group of articles, oftentimes these articles pertain to a topic area. A wikiproject oftentimes contains many or most of the wikipedians who are interested in a topic, but it does not have ownership over the articles within its topic area. When a wikiproject's internal consensus is mismatched with the project wide consensus, the project wide consensus is dominate ( WP:LOCALCONSENSUS).

6. Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with "vested contributors"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?

   We do have a issue with vested contributors. I think everyone can agree that they exist. Several novel proposals have been attempted to solve this issue and none of them have done the job. I wish I had a grand 2 year plan to solve the wiki's problems but I unfortunately do not.

8. a) Do you believe that "it takes two to tango" in some circumstances? In every circumstance? b) Would you consider mitigating the sanctions on one user given the actions of another? Eliminating them entirely?

   For the most part, everyone has dirty hands by the time a dispute reaches arbcom. Part of arbitration is to look at the holistic contributions. If a person has had only minor to moderate issues but has made an effort to reach across the aisle to end the dispute or has made a guided effort to follow the community's policies, I would propose that a warning or even no remedy with their name on it would be best. A person who did not do such things may be warned, admonished or topic banned. In the same vein, one person's bad action do not excuse other people's. "Xe started it" isn't an excuse for throwing mud.

10. zOMG ADMIN ABUSE!!!!!!! When do you believe that it is appropriate for ArbCom to accept a case, or act by motion, related to either a) abuse of the tools, or b) conduct unbecoming of an administrator?

    a) It is appropriate to accept a case when an admin uses their tools to further their side of a dispute, wheel warring takes place, or if there is a pattern of tool misuse. b) It is appropriate to accept a case when an admin breaks our social norms in a major way such as socking.

12. What is the relationship of the English Wikipedia (enwp) ArbCom to other Wikimedia sites, "Wikimedia" IRC, and so-called "badsites" or sites dedicated to the criticism of Wikipedia? Specifically, what do you define as the "remit" of ArbCom in these areas?

    The tradition is that other websites and forums (IRC, criticism sites, blogs, etc) are off wiki and outside of arbcom's remit.

14. What is your definition of "outing"?

    Posting of information, about another individual, that has not been revealed on a wikimedia site.

16. What is your opinion as to how the CU/OS tools are currently used, both here on the English Wikipedia, and across Wikimedia (if you have crosswiki experience)?

    I only know en-wikipedia. As far as I can see, the functionaries have found a happy medium between over and underuse of the tools. If something has the potential to be controversial, a discussion happens on one of the mailing lists if any action should be taken. Cowboy actions are rare.

18. Have you been in any content disputes in the past? (If not, have you mediated any content disputes in the past?) Why do you think that some content disputes not amicably resolved?

    I have been in some minor squabbles from time to time but nothing major. Oftentimes small content disputes flare up because the people involved have strong beliefs about the topic.

20. Nearly 10 years from the beginning of the Arbitration Committee, what is your vision for its future?

    To be unneeded because wikipedians found a way to organize themselves in a way that formal social control in unneeded.

22. Have you read the WMF proposal at m:Access to nonpublic information policy (which would affect enwiki ArbCom as well as all CU/OS/steward positions on all WMF sites)? Do you anticipate being able to meet the identification requirement (keeping in mind that the proposal is still in the feedback stage, and may be revised pending current feedback)?

    Yes

Thank you. Rs chen 7754 02:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC) reply

2. What is, in your view, the purpose of an ArbCom motion? Under what circumstances, or for what areas or processes, would the use of a motion be your first choice in handling the situation?

   Motions are for matters that are fully known and are relatively uncontroversial.

4. When is it not appropriate to start a motion? If the community has reached consensus on an issue, does ArbCom have the right to overrule that consensus with a motion? If the community is unable to resolve an issue for some time, and there is no active ArbCom case related to that issue, can ArbCom step in and settle the issue themselves by motion?

   When the facts of a situation are opaque or may cause wide ranging controversy. The committee can not have the right to over rule an consensus.

6. Please identify a few motions from 2013 that you believe were appropriate (if any), and a few you believe were inappropriate (if any). Discuss why you have reached the judgements that you did. Do not address the "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion in this question, it will be addressed in Q4 and Q5.

8. The "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion has proven to be hugely controversial. What (if anything) did ArbCom do right in this matter. What (if anything) did ArbCom do wrong in this matter.

   I would have voted for the deysop but not the ban

10. In the aftermath of the "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion, several Arbs laid out their reasoning in extensive detail and debated people that disagreed with their decision. While it is not uncommon for individual Arbs to explain their reasoning in greater detail, it is uncommon for so many of them to do so, to do in the midst of a hostile debate. Do you believe that the ArbCom members' explaining of their position was constructive, or did it only add fuel to an already large fire? Do you believe that ArbCom members should be explaining their reasoning in great detail regularly?

    I think it was, and is, a good idea for arbs to explain the reasoning for their votes. Votes taken on-list should be less opaque.

12. Currently, much of ArbCom business is handled over email, and in other non-public forums. Do you believe that all ArbCom discussions that do not directly concern private information should take place publicly? If so, how? Why or why not?

    I would welcome more business to happen in public but I accept the fact that this isn't going to happen any time soon.

14. The above question (Q6) was asked to every candidate last year, with several of the ultimately elected candidates pledging to make ArbCom procedures more public, or at least expressing support for such an idea. There has been, as far as I can tell, no progress on the issue.

    - If you are a current ArbCom member: What, if anything, has happened on this issue in the past year? What role, if any, are you personally playing in it?

    - If you are not a current ArbCom member: If you made a commitment above (in Q6) to bring increased transparency to ArbCom, only to reach the body and find that the rest of the committee is unwilling to move forward on the issue, what would you do?

    - All candidates: Do you have any specific proposals that you can offer to address this issue?

    I think there are other reforms of the system that need to be tacked before the mailing list issue.

2. What do you think of the way that BLP is enforced on Wikipedia right now? Does the community generally do a good job? Are there any recent situations that you think were handled poorly?

   The community does not do a good job with enforcing BLP. I don't have any diffs on hand but my memories of the, sadly little, work I did answering BLP emails on OTRS is a never ending stream of people who find major faults in their biographies.

I also use these questions in my voter guide, and the latter four were actually general questions asked in 2012, which I asked be used again.

2. An arbitrator stated during a case "I will merely say that now arbitration of the dispute has became necessary, it is exceedingly unlikely that we would be able to close the case without any sanctions. Problematic articles inevitably contain disruptive contributors, and disruptive contributors inevitably require sanctions." Do you feel that once a case is opened that impartial arbitrators will "inevitably" have to impose sanctions?

   I think that is was a general statement of how cases have progressed in the past and not a statement on an individual case.

4. Do sanctions such as topic bans require some sort of finding about the editor being sanctioned based on at least a minimum amount of actual evidence about that person, or is the "cut the Gordian knot" approach of "Kill them all, the Lord will know his own" proper?

   I have a very low opinion of the machine gun approach to arbing as you outlined here.

6. Do you feel that "ignoring evidence and workshop pages" can result in a proper decision by the committee" (I think that for the large part, the evidence and workshop phases were ignored in this case is a direct quote from a current member about a case) Will you commit to weighing the evidence and workshop pages in making any decisions?

   Evidence can't be ignored. It is the "meat" of an arbcom case. To say that a decision can be written without reading all of the diffs and statements it is foolish. Every FoF should be backed with difs of the problematic behavior. However, the workshop is mostly useless. Most proposals can't ever be passed in a final decision and are little more than mud throwing. Rarely, someone comes up with a novel proposal to end a dispute or writes a evenhanded draft but it isn't the norm.

8. Past Cases: The Arbitration Committee has historically held that prior decisions and findings were not binding in any future decisions or findings. While this may have been wise in the early years of Wikipedia, is any avoidance of stare decisis still a valid position? How should former cases/decisions be considered, if at all?

   While past cases are not binding, they should inform current decisions. Already we see that the text of past principals and the remedies sections of cases are remixed for current cases. The committee should not make 180 degree turns on major positions without a good reason. ( United States v. Causby comes to mind)

10. The "Five Pillars" essay has been mentioned in recent discussions. Ought it be used in committee findings, or is it of explanatory rather than of current direct importance to Wikipedia?

    I think that the pillars are used in the principals section of cases on a regular basis and that this is a good practice.

12. Biographical articles (not limited to BLPs) form a substantial part of conduct issues placed before the committee. Without getting the committee involved in individual content issues, and without directly formulating policy, how should the committee weigh such issues in future principles, findings and decisions?

    I have answered this question, in piecemeal, in other locations on this page.

14. "Factionalism" (specifically not "tagteam" as an issue) has been seen by some as a problem on Wikipedia (many different names for such factions have been given in the past). Do you believe that factionalism is a problem? Should committee decisions be affected by evidence of factionalism, in a case or around an article or articles? If the committee makes a finding that "factions" exist as part of a conduct issue, how should factionalism be treated in the remedies to the case?

    A faction is often in the eye of the beholder. People gravitate to other people they agree with; it is human nature. There are situations, like the EEML, when a group of editors worked together to push a POV but I don't think this is a common occurrence.

Thank you. Collect ( talk) 12:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Thank you for volunteering.

2. Basic first question of three: please describe what happens in this diff. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

   An infobox is moved from a collapsed box to the top of an article. My guess is this is part of Infoboxes, seeing that the edit was done by PigsOnTheWings and you are asking this question. I am not fully sure that rehashing an arbcom case in a Socratic dialogue is a good idea.

4. You observed well. I prefer facts to guesses ;) (I am not "rehashing", I am still in the process of finding out how arbcom works and if that could be improved.) - Question 2 of 3: imagine you are an arb on a case, and your arb colleague presents the above diff as support for his reasoning to vote for banning the editor, - what do you do? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply

2. What are your views about possible changes to procedures concerning the confidentiality of communications on the arbcom-l e-mail list, as proposed at the bottom of this draft page and in this discussion?

   I'm not sure it is a great idea to release emails without the consent of the sender.

2. First off, thanks for running for the position. I noted in your statement that you expect to have a heavy workload for at least part of your term, and that real life takes precdent over Wikipedia. I fully agree with that, but how will you handle this time? (example, only going inactive when you need to focus on your thesis (is the plural Thesii? ;)) or planning to be inactive proactively during a period of time.

   I am not planning on talking a proactive leave of absence but I will disappear for a few days around the time that chapters are due.

2. Between allowing a fringe POV pusher to roam free in Sexology, the massive embarrassment of the Manning dispute, and ArbCom instructing admins to undelete libel (see Jimbo's talk page), how would you seek to repair Wikipedia's reputation amongst LGBT–especially transgender–lay-readers?

4. In the third example given above regarding the undeletion of a libellous BLP, what role did you have in the arbcom-l/oversight-l discussion?

   Without more information I can't search my emails for a os-l thread.

(Note borrowed from Rschen7754): The questions are similar to those I asked in 2012. If you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those, but make sure the question has not been reworded.

2. when would you see a full site ban (full block) as a better choice then a limited ban (interaction, topic, etc.)?

   Site bans should be used when all other options would be ineffective. This would include times when an editor refuses to act within their restrictions, shows no ability to reform, or acts (or acted) grossly outside of community norms.

4. wnumerous ArbCom (also, admin and community) decisions result in full site bans (of varying length) for editors who have nonetheless promised they will behave better. In essence, those editors are saying "let me help" and we are saying "this project doesn't want your help". How would you justify such decisions (blocking editors who promised to behave), against an argument that by blocking someone who has promised to behave better we are denying ourselves his or her help in building an encyclopedia? What is the message we are trying to send? (You may find this of interest in framing your reply)

6. to an extent we can compare the virtual wiki world to the real world, what legal concept would you compare a full site ban to? (As in, an interaction ban is to a restraining order what a full site ban is to...?)

   Exile

8. The United States justice model has the highest incarceration rate in the world ( List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate). Is something to applaud or criticize?

   Criticize. There is nothing positive about having a large part of your population behind bars. It is a sign that the social fabric of a nation has faltered and that the justice system does not have a focus on reforming people.

10. a while ago I wrote a mini wiki essay on when to block people (see here). Would you agree or disagree with the views expressed there, and why?

    I agree with the general premise of your thesis. There are some times when blocking is taking a sledgehammer to a nut. There are other times where blocks need to be swift and long. It depends on the situation.

12. I respect editors privacy with regards to their name. I however think that people entrusted with significant power, such as Arbitrators, should disclose to the community at least their age, education and nationality. In my opinion such a disclosure would balance the requirements for privacy (safeguarding Arbitrators from real life harassment), while giving the community a better understanding of background and maturity of those entrusted with such a significant power. Would you be therefore willing to disclose your age, education and nationality? If not, please elaborate why.

    I don't believe that this information would give you anything extra at the voting both and I do not think that it is in my best interests to place it all in one place.

Thank you, -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply

2. Please detail your most significant Featured or Good article contributions. GAN, FAC or even Peer Review contributions qualify as evidence of teamwork in bringing an article(s) to a higher level of excellence.

   I have written four Good Articles: Jackie Hudson, Margaret McKenna, Toil and " Pittsburgh Town." (Margaret McKenna, Toil and Pittsburgh Town were written in the past year.) All of them were started as a draft in my userspace, grew to a DYK, and further progressed to GA status. Each could not have passed through GAN without copyedits and help from other wikipedians.

2. Firstly, please accept my apologies for adding to the list of questions! I'm one of the less controversial arbitrators but even I have had my writing twisted, my honesty questioned, my personality derided. I've been the target of unpleasant emails and real life actions. Other arbitrators have been subject to much worse. Have you thought about how being an arbitrator might affect you and what have you done to prepare?

   People in my real life know of my wikipedia username and activities

The number of Active Editors on EnWP has been in decline since 2007.

This decline has been documented extensively:

• In our own "Editor Trends Study"
• In popular media ( "Nobody wants to edit Wikipedia anymore")
• In scholarly literature ( "How Wikipedia’s reaction to popularity is causing its decline")

This raises several questions:

2. Is this really problem? Or is it just a sign of a maturing project reaching an optimum community size now that the bulk of our work is done?

   The decline in editors is a problem. For the encyclopedia to be the best it can be, we need a diverse and large pool of editors working through issues.

4. In your personal opinion, what steps, if any, need to be taken by the EnWP Community?

6. In your personal opinion, what steps, if any, need to be taken by the Foundation?

8. Lastly, what steps, if any, could be taken by ArbCom?

   This is outside of the scope of the committee.

2. Sorry that this comes so late in the game. What is your opinion of the website Wikipediocracy? Does that site have value to Wikipedia or is it an unmitigated blight? If it is the latter, what do you propose that Wikipedia do about it? To what extent (if any) do you feel that abusive actions by self-identified Wikipedians on that site are actionable by ArbCom?

   I wasn't ignoring this question; I returned home for thanksgiving and was spending time with my family. I rarely get an opportunity to do this.

   On paper, Wikipediocracy (WO) is a great idea. Discussions in the wikipedia namespace often devolve into something that is a cross between an echo chamber, a thread at /r/circlejerk and a popularity contest. Meta discussions have their fair share of busybodies, axe grinders, and career drama causers. It often seems that sections of the community fail to live up to Antandrus's observation: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The primary job of Wikipedians is to write it. Everything else is secondary." We treat the people with biographies on the site very poorly. Breaking through the groupthink and pointing out the absurdities of our internal practices should be praised.

   However in practice, the site is Mos Eisley Spaceport. The good things that come from the site are overshadowed by the threats of real life actions, outing of wikipedians, and general nastiness. While there are wiki(p/m)dians in good standing on the site, it has become a playground for people who have been banned from wikipedia who can't understand why they were blocked/banned.

   The site is off wiki and outside of the remit of the committee. Actions taken on WO can be taken as another factor on top of large amounts of onwiki misbehavior but a case can not hinge on actions taken on the site.

Thank you. Carrite ( talk) 04:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC) reply

2. How important do you think is transparency and accountability for Admins and Arbitrators, bearing in mind that: (a) Checkuser and Oversight have no public logs, even though we could say who accesses these features (without necessarily giving compromising information)? (b) ArbCom has its own off-site discussion area.

   What are you asking here? This question is worded in such a way that I do not know what information is desired. I think transparency is good but there are strong reasons to keep some information from the public.

4. I see lots of ArbCom cases where editors contribute unsubstantiated acusations without provided diffs, and often provide diffs that don't backup the allegations. Do you think ArbCom should do anything about it? (ie. strike though allegations without diffs).

   In many cases, the arbs ask the clerks to remove allegations without diffs.

6. Incivility on Wikipedia is rife. Sometimes it is ambiguous and subjective. But where it is clear, why do you think enough is done to uphold this core policy?

8. Editors whose username lets them be identified easily in real life, are frequently subjected to "oppositional research" by anonymous editors who can readily achieve WP:PRIVACY. Do you think this double standard is fair, and should anything be done?

   There is nothing that can be done to stop people from using google.

10. I see lots of ArbCom cases where Arbitrators appear to ignore the comments of the editors involved. Do you think that basic courtesies should require Arbitrators to make more than just an indirect statement, and actually address the points being made?

    No. There are many times where threads on the evidence talk page, the workshop page, and the proposed decision talk page shouldn't be dignified with a response.

2. Wikipedia is largely an on-line community, and some editors prefer their activities to remain entirely on-line. However, other Wikipedians engage in off-line, real world Wikipedia activities, such as Wikimeets, outreach work, or training. How much are you currently involved in these off-line activities, and would this be different if you were or were not on the Arbitration Committee?

   I am no longer involved in any offline activities.

2. Should "Petit crimes" be sanctioned? and how ?

   The present situation is described as User:Wikid77#Wiki opinions continued says: "some acting as "inter-wikicity gangs" with limited civility (speaking euphemistically)...Mob rule: Large areas of wikis are run by mobocracy voting. Numerous edit wars and conflicts exist in some highly popular groups of articles, especially in recent events or news articles. In those conflicts, typically 99% of debates are decided by mob rule, not mediated reason...Future open: From what I've seen, the Wiki concept could be extended to greatly improve reliability, but allow anonymous editing of articles outside a screening phase, warning users to refer to the fact-checked revision as screened for accuracy (this eventually happened in German Wikipedia"

   At the moment there is no treatment of those little crimes. i.e. deleting while cheating, lying, arguing for a view with no support at all against a well supported opposite view, war of attrition tactics, deleting a supported sentence, etc. The result is distorted articles and some fed up editors who discontinue to edit. I can provide examples, if asked for.

   In my view, each of these small scale problems does not worth a sanction , but the there should be a counting mechanism, such as a user who has accumulated a certain amount of them, should be sanctioned. What is your view?

4. Does Our NPOV policy mean that an editor is violating the policy if he only contributes to one side?

   The issue is discussed her: [1].

   In my opinion, the view that every post should be neutral leads to a built in absurd. Suppose that the best Wikipedia editor is editing a group of biased articles. He is doing a great job and the articles become neutral. The editor should be sanctioned because every single edit (as well as the pattern of edits) is biased toward the other side. !

   Articles should be NPOV not edits. However, there is often a thin line between making an article NPOV and POV pushing.

6. There are ignored rules. Should we change the rules or try to enforce them? how?

   e.g.

   As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone

   lying

   I can show that those 2 rules were ignored in the wp:arbcom but those are just an example. There are more ignored rules. So, Should we change the rules or try to enforce them? how?

   Written rules only document existing practices and do not exist for their own sake.

2. Should articles ever use The Daily Mail as a reference source? Should articles ever use YouTube videos as external links? Is there still any place for a " WP:civility" policy, or does it depend on how many "good edits" an editor makes? Should we be allowed to donate to the Wikimedia Foundation using Bitcoins? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 22:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

   (A)That is a content issue not a conduct issue and out of the scope of arbcom.

   (B) Again, a content dispute and out of arbcom's remit.

   (C) The amount of content someone may produce or the rights associated with an account do not give anyone a free pass to ignore core policies. This includes civility, NPOV, and verifiability.

   (D) This is a WMF issue and out of the scope of the committee.

Thank you, Guerillero, although I was more interested in your views than in the scope of the committee to which you may be elected, alas. Martinevans123 ( talk) 11:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply