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.

General questions

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

   Level-headed common sense, and patience to hear both sides.

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.

   So far, I haven't participated in any arbitration cases. I was twice reported to ANI, and the outcome was that the other party (who reported me) was blocked. In another case a user went forum-shopping all across Wikipedia, arriving eventually at WP:DRN but none of the other editors even took notice, no case for dispute resolution was opened, and the controversial user was blocked indefinitely. In 7 years of content creating, I managed to solve almost all disputes over content or form/style at the lowest possible level, talking directly to disagreeing editors, and acknowledging my own mistakes when I made one.

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 would tend to stay right in the middle, perhaps with the tiniest wee little bit on the lenient side, per In dubio pro reo.

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).

   I would ask to be excused from judging the user who reported me twice to ANI. In the meanwhile he was sanctioned by ArbCom, but there might be appeals later on. Except for this one, none at all.

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've been around steadily, without breaks, since 2006, and can't imagine why I shouldn't stay on for another two years...

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.

    In a general way, I see on talk pages I come across while creating content, or while trying to get a picture on RfA candidates, a lot of criticism towards ArbCom, but I can't remember any reference to actual cases now, except people who were sanctioned and complain about it (which is natural). I'd rather let bygones be bygones than criticize ArbCom, and look into a case when an appeal comes up. (Whatever ArbCom decided in the past, Wikipedia is still alive, or isn't it?) I was surprised when I recently got aware of the fact that User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz was banned, but I think that ArbCom arrived at a correct conclusion. To show a total inability of dropping the stick after more than a dozen blocks, and the ability of writing 1 megabyte of talk page text about a single misplaced word in a reply to a discussion, outweigh any content creation. Anybody could create the same content, but nobody should disrupt Wikipedia. (Sorry, Kiefer, please drink a cup of tea, and don't go through the roof, please!)

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?

    There are two questions. First: It depends on why ArbCom has accepted fewer cases. If there is, in a general way, less serious trouble, then it would be a good trend. If it was the result of recusing more cases than previously, then it would be a bad trend. Second: I would accept a case if non-accepting would result in damage to Wikipedia, or if there's a chance to decide it in a way to improve Wikipedia. As previously stated, I would recuse any case/appeal involving Richard Arthur Norton, because he thinks I'm biased against him.

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

    As long as a problem is solved, it doesn't matter how (observing the rules, obviously).

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?

    The last thing Wikipedia needs is to inflate its bureaucracy.

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?

    The ArbCom can not very well create policy, it should be bound by the existing guidelines, which in turn should have been created by community consensus. In some cases, if there is a "content dispute" which resulted in trouble, ArbCom could ask uninvolved editors to work out a compromise (for example by RfC, observing the existing guidelines) and ask the involved parties to stay away from the matter while the case is pending. If this scheme works out, there might be a case decided without sanctions (that would depend on civility issues), as referred to in the answer to Collect's Q 1.

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

    ArbCom should enforce all guidelines and policies. Since the subjects of these disputes are living people, respecting human dignity, ArbCom should take swift and decisive action in BLP cases, to avoid real life damage.

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 doubt very much that I would request the tools.

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?

    Absolutely no problem.

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?

    It doesn't make any difference, either way, or does it? The records aren't published anyway.

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?

    Generally users or the community should see the evidence, so that a defense can be put forward. There might be cases of "national security" when info/evidence can not be shared with anybody, but action must be taken. Although, this looks rather far-fetched, I remember a case when wrong info was added to a bio of a kidnapped person to paint him pink to his kidnappers, and people who tried to correct the info were blocked from doing so, and nobody was told why until the person was released...

Individual questions

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=}}

Questions from Rschen7754

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?

   Slightly above the average perhaps. Nothing to worry about. Maybe the arbs had more urgent things to do while this case was going on.

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?

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?

   If there is a problem, talk about it (RfC, talk page etc.), try to convince by argument and be patient.

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?

   Well, it takes two to tango, or not? One can certainly edit Wikipedia alone. Being provoked by another user may be considered as a mitigating circumstance. I'd be willing to give somebody a second chance, but I'd be very wary to give a third, fourth, fifth, ..., sixteenth (I've seen logs with 15 blocks) chance...

   I mean Takes two to tango (idiom). -- Rs chen 7754 22:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC) reply

   I know, I've heard that idiom before. You might want to rephrase your question if you're not satisfied with the answer. Kraxler ( talk) 21:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC) reply

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?

    It's appropriate for ArbCom to take any case. The arbs will have to read the initially presented evidence, and make up their minds. You don't want me to dream up a variety of scenarios here, which might induce admin to misbehave in the described manner.

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?

    I wasn't aware of the existence of "sites dedicated to the criticism of Wikipedia", and I certainly won't take any notice of them. Addendum: Apparently the most time-consuming task of ArbCom is to stave off and/or deal with off-wiki attacks launched at these "badsites". Good to know. Under the circumstances, I'll certainly have to deal with it, if elected.

14. What is your definition of "outing"?

    Sorry, I didn't write the English dictionary. There is no such thing as "my" definition of a common English word. Feel free to consult Outing, Outing (disambiguation) and WP:OUTING. Addendum: I apologize if this sounds rude to you, unfortunately the bare truth sounds harsh at times. However, you might want to rephrase your question. Please read it carefully. I still think that I can not define what "outing" is. I might know what "outing" is, and I might have an opinion on the matter, or is this another one of your idioms? Then you should blue-link it, to give me a hint. I have already outed myself as German, and in case I misunderstand anything, feel free to call my attention and correct me.

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)?

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've not been in any content "disputes". Occasionally there was disagreement about what should or should not be written in the article, and a final version was worked out by talking about it. I've been in three disputes about something else: In 2009, a user deleted a navbox which I created for the New York state elections, showing all years when the elections happened. The box was necessary to do copy/paste transfers of content from previous elections' articles. The other user insisted that only his election navbox (a "holdall" with ten different types of elections, but without the state election years) should be the only one shown in the articles. I explained what I needed the box for, but the other user insisted in reverting, he called an admin and he got promptly blocked. Well, that's ancient history now. (Different NY election navboxes, including the one in question, heve been merged in the meanwhile.) Later I got caught twice in the general imbroglio about infoboxes. In May 2011, a user added infoboxes to articles I had created and incorrectly transcribed the info from the text, so that the infobox and the text disagreed, the box being incorrect. I removed the box, asking the other user to check what he was doing. He insisted in reverting instead of correcting, and after some time asked me to correct the infobox if there's something wrong. This I declined to do at first, being busy with writing up a different article. After a week of haggling about it, I corrected the infobox, and the other user was blocked about 2 weeks later for generally disruptive behavior (as I much later got to know). The next time happened at Stephen H. Wendover which I a already referred to at Gerda Arendt's question. Please note: I generally do not add infoboxes to short bios, but I do add them to longer articles as 1st New York State Legislature and the following 148 legislature articles I created so far. I'm neither for nor against infoboxes, on principle. I follow the guideline which says that they should be added at the discretion of the editor. (My decision has something to do with spacing and readability.) If an infobox is added, I expect that info is transcribed correctly.

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

    10 years is not much to make a big historical analysis. I'm not a visionary either. ArbCom should continue to do business as usual. Wikipedia is still there, as is ArbCom.

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)?

    I just looked at it now. I certainly will be able to meet the identification requirements.

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

Questions from Collect

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?

   No. A case might be arbitrated without imposing sanctions. I guess that would be a rare occurrence, but I'm sure it's possible.

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?

   You're kidding, aren't you? How could anybody arbitrate anything without evidence? Or worse, how could anybody proclaim that he would be going to do so?

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?

   Now, there are two questions. First: No. Second: Yes.

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?

   Yes, it is still a valid position. Previous decisions can be brought up by any involved party/arb as a Precedent, and can be taken into consideration. However the precedent can not be binding, because then the involved parties would haggle forever over how equal/different this case is to/from the precedent; and thus would lose their focus.)

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?

    Five Pillars is rather basic and ample. I doubt it would make any difference in the findings of any particular case; the pertaining evidence, guidelines and policies would be of more help.

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?

    With some caution.

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?

    Committee findings should be affected by the evidence. Any and all evidence. Period. I believe I can spot factionalism if I see it, so I'll keep my eyes open.

Thank you. Collect ( talk) 01:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Questions by Sven Manguard

I respectfully decline to answer any of your questions. As already stated at Gerda's question below, I refuse to review alone in 30 minutes what the full ArbCom decided after months of deliberations. Please believe that, as a political historian, I'm well versed in parliamentary practice and have seen the word "motion" before. Also, I have stated elsewhere already that I do value procedures less than evidence and actual deliberations; and that I abhor instruction creep. So there is no point to repeat all that over and over again. Kraxler ( talk) 22:08, 23 November 2013 (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?

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?

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.

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?

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?

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?

Questions by Gerda Arendt

Thank you for volunteering.

2. Basic first question of three: please describe what happens in this diff. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 18:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

   Sorry, Gerda, no comment. The editor who did the edit in question, and the "Case of the Infernal Infobox" (as Erle Stanley Gardner would have named it) have been judged by ArbCom. I'll look into it if or when an appeal comes up, provided I get elected... My own stance on infoboxes in general can be seen in the archived talk here: Talk:Stephen H. Wendover.

4. We know that the case has been judged. I asked you (every candidate) to look at one particular edit, wondering (for every candidate) if you are willing to look at facts and how. You don't have to, of course. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 00:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply

   Yes, I'm willing to look at facts, but I'm unwilling to be goaded by an involved party into judging alone in 30 minutes what a full committee has had under scrutiny for some time. Sorry Gerda, I'm not the Court of ArbCom Appeals.

6. I didn't ask you to judge, I only asked you to look at the fact. Others were quite able to describe it in one sentence. It is not about infoboxes, which you seem to assume. You don't have to look, of course.

   Thank you that you acknowledge that I don't have to. No, I don't assume it's about infoboxes. I was under the impression that it was about the sanction you're under. If it weren't you would have chosen a diff from an editor not involved in your own ArbCom case. Sorry Gerda, if I get elected, and if you lodge an appeal, I'll give you a fair deal. You're as much entitled to it as anybody else.

Good luck. I said before that I can live with my sanctions even if they don't make sense and are against my quality standards, that's not my point. I hope for arbs looking at facts. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 23:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Question from Tryptofish

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?

   A severe case of WP:Instruction creep.

Question from Sceptre

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?

   You (the LGBT community) could start with voting for sensible arbs at this election (nine of them), then keep up discussing things instead of edit-warring, try to argue, be patient, and possibly work out a compromise every now and then. Then, the controversies wouldn't even reach ArbCom. Wikipedia is made by the community, ArbCom can not damage or repair Wikipedia's reputation on its own.

Question from User:SirFozzie

2. First off, thank you for volunteering and especially for your contributions. You've focused heavily on the content creation side of things with regards to articles, is that a plus when dealing with the Commmittee? What should be the balance of Content Creation and experience with Dispute Resolution to make an ideal arbitrator? SirFozzie ( talk) 00:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply

   There are two questions again. First: Not necessarily. Long-time content creation has given me, as a side effect, a wide range of knowledge of policies and guidelines, which is some basic tool in arbitration. Not every content creator could say the same, as I know many of them who ignore some guidelines and many policies. Second. Neither content creation nor experience in dispute resolution are that important to make an ideal arbitrator. The most important trait in such an ideal arb would be the absence of bias. As I said before, I do not want to review any particular case decided by ArbCom. But consider this hypothetical scenario: The gay Mr. X leaks out Y country's state secrets, and haggling about what happened and who he is ensues at the Mr. X. article. Eventually the whole thing goes to some mediating body of which some members are gay, some are homophobic, some are patriotic Y citizens and some are anti-Y foreigners (obviously nobody knows who is which, since nobody must be outed). And now imagine that every member judges the involved parties according to his own views/preferences instead of according to the evidence or the guidelines/policies. What do you think will happen? Anybody will remember the content created by any member previously? Or anybody will remember the previous disputes which had been solved? I doubt it a little bit. Isn't it more likely that the members then will accuse each other of misconduct, will try to out each other, and will be reviled and severely criticized by the community which contains members with the same variety of views/preferences, and who mutually do not accept any adverse decision? (Disclaimer: Any similarity with real past, current or future events is not intended, and would be mere coincidence!) I'm unbiased; and able to read and understand the evidence, and willing to discuss it openly with the other arbs. That is what qualifies me as an arb. Only the voters can tell me whether my view is correct or mistaken.

Question from Piotrus

(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.)?

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)

   I doubt that ArbCom has full-site-banned any first-offenders. Editors who, at lower levels, promise to behave better, and then don't, should be aware that their word is worth nothing. The project really doesn't need "help" from disruptors, there are 7 billion people out there, there must be some editors who indeed behave well, or not?

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...?)

   ...being driven in a police car across the city limit and being told not to come back.

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?

   Sorry, no comment. This is the ArbCom election, please stick to point.

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?

    Sorry, no comment. I'm the candidate, not you. The voters should endorse or reject the candidate's views, not somebody else's. (Anyway, I'm not so fond of essays, I'd rather discuss facts.)

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.

    No problem, but I'm way ahead of you: I've disclosed on my user page long time ago that I'm from Germany. In my Nomination Statement I disclosed that I'm a grandfather which gives you a hint at my age. My education level you'll have to judge from my articles, read a few of them, and tell me what you think about it.

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

Question from User:MONGO

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.

Question from User:Worm That Turned

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?

   No need to apologize, I expected to answer a lot of questions anyway. Well, after reading your "job description", I'm amazed that there are still 22 candidates running, some even for re-election. The latter seems to prove that being an arb is survivable. Unpleasant e-mails don't hurt. Real life actions? Pope Francis got stuck in a traffic jam in Rio de Janeiro last July and a crowd of people reached through the open windows of his car to shake his hand. Afterwards he was asked whether he hadn't been afraid of being crushed or attacked, and he answered "I'm not afraid of anything." Period. And that's my answer to your question too. Or as Perry Mason said: "I can not only dish it out, I can take it on the chin too."

Question from User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

2. In the past you have been involved in edit wars with me, at Stephen H. Wendover where you called my edits "shit" and me "insane" and an "imbecile" and wrote that I am "fucking up articles on Wikipedia". We also argued at Charles F. Tabor and Silas Seymour and Frank M. Williams as well as others. You can review the edit histories to see the heated conversations. Do you think you have the temperament for dispassionate arbitration when you are so protective of edits to pages that you have started? I admire the articles you create, I have written that to you more than once. You bring obscure people to our attention that deserve to be remembered by history. I just worry that you do not have an even temper, or the ability to compromise, or work as a team, that is needed for arbitration.

   Well, Richard, I wouldn't have mentioned your name here, but since you came forward yourself, and asked for it... First off, I'd like to call attention to your own recent ArbCom case: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and to your block log, so that readers can get a hint to what I'm talking about. I already included links to the Stephen H. Wendover article and talk pages in previous answers to other questions. You, Richard, have a history of 7 years of disruptive editing and multiple sanctions. You were blocked again only two months ago for violating the sanctions imposed by ArbCom. You were also blocked in consequence of the Wendover disagreement, while I was not, which seems to confirm that you edit-warred and I did not. In fact, I never had any serious problems here on Wikipedia with any other user than you. I regret to have used some strong language, possibly on the border of civility. Fact is that after my edit work having been disrupted by you, I was able to disengage and drop the stick very quickly, while you continued to edit-war and misinterpret guidelines for quite some time. So much for "temper". Looking back, the whole thing served me well as a valuable piece of experience. Going through a dispute like that will help me to understand what some involved parties in ArbCom cases feel. I suggest that you, Richard, take it easy, tread lightly, and try to get along with other editors in the future.

4. Per you answer: This isn't about me, I am not running for office, you are. Me "fucking up articles" involved conflict over simple stylistic differences over infoboxes and formatting references. Even with all the time for reflection, you still think "shit" and "insane" and "imbecile" and "fucking up articles" is only "possibly on the border of civility". Here is my second question: You have a distinctive style of writing, so much so that I can instantly tell that you have created a particular article. For instance at J. Griswold Webb. You use the German Wikipedia style for birth and death dates that include the birth and death location in the lede. You never use the citation templates, you always use plain text and ALL CAPS. The Manual of Style says that "the most frequent choice is 'References'" as the header for the Reference and Notes section and you always use "Notes". In the past you have removed infoboxes, added by others, from articles you have created. When other people add references or format your references, you remove the "accessdate" parameter from the template. My question is: Do you think every editor should develop their own individual style for the format of articles that they create, or should editors conform to the best practices at the Manual of Style and the style used for Good Articles? Should we be encouraging individual expression that may lead to a better format, or should we be working on harmonizing articles to a standard "look and feel", even if that "look and feel" is not optimal?

   Sorry Richard, this is the ArbCom election. ArbCom does not decide content disputes. If you have a problem with the content or style of any of my articles, please discuss it at the pertaining talk page, or at my user talk page (as required by the guidelines).

6. I am sorry that you chose not to answer the valid question. I will rephrase it. Can a person who's writing style is so different from the Wikipedia Manual Of Style make a good arbiter of the behavior of other people? Is that person's nonconformity an advantage or disadvantage for the role of arbitration?

   Could you give me a link to where in the Manual of Style is the part about behavior?

8. Are you requesting a clarification, or answering my question with another question to be snarky? If you are asking for a clarification, please rephrase it, I do not understand your response.

   ...

Question from User:HectorMoffet

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?

   No, this is not really a problem. Yes, it is just a sign of a maturing project reaching an adequate community size now that the bulk of our work is done. Thus, the next three questions can all be answered by: No special steps need to be taken, just let it roll...

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?

Question from Carrite

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?

   No need to apologize, questions are in order until the end of the voting time. Wikipediocracy seems to be some sort of internet Speakers' Corner. As such it is of much more value to the speakers than to both their audience and passers-by who wouldn't stop to listen. When it comes to outing/doxing/harassment anywhere off-wiki (not restricted to Wikipediocracy), certainly ArbCom can take measures, as long as there is any connection to editors active on en.wiki which is this ArbCom's remit.

Thank you. Carrite ( talk) 04:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Questions from iantresman

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.

   Transparency and accountability have nothing to do with Checkuser/Oversight logs or ArbCom's off-wiki discussions. Have you ever been invited to sit in on a police investigation, or while a panel of judges tried to reach a decision in their private room, after having heard arguments in open court?

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).

   I'm sure nobody takes "unsubstantiated accusations" seriously. Well, I won't.

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?

   Re: "Why do you think enough is done to uphold this core policy?" Do I think that? How do you know?

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?

   The user name is chosen by the editor. If you choose "iantresman" and identify yourself as Ian Tresman, I can only hope your real name is something sounding like John Doe or Richard Roe.

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?

    That sounds like an unsubstantiated accusation, especially there not being a diff...

Question from Bazonka

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'm sure most editors prefer their activities to remain entirely on-line, for a variety of reasons. I'm one of them. Currently I'm not involved in any off-line Wiki activities, and I doubt that this will change in the near future, getting elected or not.

Question from user:Ykantor

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?

1. "Petit crimes" are taken care of routinely by the admin corps, not necessarily with sanctions. Sometimes it helps to start a discussion about it, and agree on better conduct in the future. "typically 99% of debates are decided by mob rule" sounds like somebody who was pushing POV and then had to bow to reliable sources.

2

1. 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. !

1. First, no, the editor is not violating the NPOV policy if he only contributes to one side from a neutral point of view. Second, apparently that's not what happened in the case of Gilabrand you refer to. (I'll refrain from a deeper analysis here.) Third, yes, any editor "should be sanctioned because every single edit (as well as the pattern of edits) is biased toward the other side." Obviously your proposition is absurd; you can't fight bias with bias. The article would never "become neutral."

Questions from user:Martinevans123

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? Is humour now an outdated concept at Wikipedia? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 17:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC) reply

   Sorry, but I neither read the Daily Mail, nor do I watch Youtube videos. Anyway, ArbCom does not usually decide content issues, and I'm not aware of ArbCom ever having banned any particular media from use as a source. Civility does not depend on anybody's content work here, it should be enforced regardless. However, an occasional outburst is very well excusable, and can be taken care of with an admonition. Anybody who is repeatedly uncivil, or who has an overall pattern of incivility, should not be allowed to hide behind "content work". About humour as an outdated concept, well, I don't hope so, it would be a pity. We Germans always found space enough for humour, even in the most serious scientific areas, see Stone louse...

Poor Kraxler, you are obviously somewhat culturally improverished, missing both of those media icons. Never mind, haha. Aber, wie wundervoll mit dieser neuen Insekten! A highlight of that impressive source, it seems. Vielen Dank für Ihre gute Laune. Martinevans123 ( talk) 19:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply