Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Questions from Collect

2. Should the existence of a "case" imply that the committee should inevitably impose "sanctions"?

   It dependson what we find during the case. Accepting a case means we think that something is in our jurisdiction , but it does not mean tha we pre-judgethe result.

4. If an administrator has openly stated an aversion to an editor on that editor's talk page, is that sufficient to indicate that the administrator is no longer impartial concerning that editor?

   Nobody should be openly stating personal aversion to other editors on their talk page or anywhere else on WP--The principle is No Personal Attacks. So I assume you mean the admin has given negative criticism to the work the person has been doing here. Normally it's fine that they follow up and try to get the editor to solve the problem, but if they become over-involved in the matter, they should let some other admin take over, as a precaution to ensure objectivity.

6. a. In cases where the person involved in a case is actually out of the country during that case, should the case be delayed to afford that editor sufficient time to address any issues raised?
   b. Where multiple editors present evidence against such a person, should that person be afforded additional space for rebuttal?
   c. Where evidence is added at the last minute, should the clock be stopped to allow actual time to rebut the last-minute evidence?
   d. Under what circumstance, if any, should arbitrators be allowed to present evidence in the proposed decision which was not previously presented by anyone else?

   For a/, b/ and c/ , arb com should be -- and is -- flexible in these matters, to be fair in the individual circumstances. For d/, arbs examine the statements in a case, and look into the background; if they find something relevant that hasn't been discussed, they should ask about it. But if they are taking on a major role in presenting the evidence they should instead recuse from the case. None of these points have a yes-no answer. For most of them, either way of handling the matter can lead to injustice and poor decisions--and all of them have been problems for one or another of the recent cases. I would never claim that we made the correct decision always, but I think showing the need to adapt to the particular circumstances is better than a absolute rule for any of them. The very purpose of having an arb com is the ability to dealwith equivocal problems--the obvious ones should be settled without us.

Thank you. Collect ( talk) 13:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Question from Biblioworm

2. Consider the following ideas for reforming ArbCom:

• Remove and redistribute tasks that are irrelevant to dispute resolution (such as functionary issues) and tasks that are perhaps too sensitive and stressful for anonymous, untrained volunteers (such as legal issues, privacy matters, off-wiki harassment, etc.)
• Streamline ArbCom case procedures by:

1. Requiring that, at the beginning of every case, ArbCom clearly state (in a question format), what issues they will address, and additionally require that ArbCom address only those issues in the final decision. A great problem right now is the tendency of cases to be chaotic and have little structure.
2. Eliminating or tightly restricting the peanut galleries and focusing mostly on the actual case parties. The peanut galleries which show up at ArbCom cases are often the cause of much confusion, flamewars, and disruption (after all, people in a courtroom gallery are not permitted to just get up and start speaking—only the parties may speak).

• Give first preference to topic bans (or even temporary blocks) over sitebans, unless the party in question clearly has broad behavioral problems that are not restricted to a particular topic area. There is a rather widespread perception that ArbCom is currently much too hasty in using the banhammer.
• Mandate that all AE requests be left open for a minimum amount of time (let's just say 24 hours), to give the accused an opportunity to have their case heard by multiple administrators. Currently, any admin can instantly impose a unilateral and basically irreversible AE blocks, without letting any other admins consider the case. Obviously, this leaves the system rather wide open to abuse.
• Make ArbCom more open by allowing ordinary users to propose motions, with the caveat that the motion will be considered dead and cannot be reconsidered if no arbitrator responds within a certain amount of time.

Do you support these measures, and would you work to implement them if elected? If you do not support all of them, please specify which ones you do support.

Thank you. Biblio ( talk) Reform project. 23:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC) reply

1. 1a/ If you mean that arb com should not appoint and monitor functionaries, who else do you suggest do it? It's a very small part of our functions.
   1b/As far as dealing with privacy, etc. , who do you suggest deal with it? The foundation? Arb com 's experience with them the past two years -- and, I've been told earlier than that-- is that they allot very few people to this work, and though the staff they do allot are excellent, they are overburdened & in consequence much too slow and unresponsive. If arb com does not deal with these, nobody will. We already use them for backup in the most difficult cases, and even that seems to be too much for them to handle
   2/ It is not necessarily clear at the beginning of a case what the actual issues are likely to be--we accept case son the basis of the statements of the parties, but the evidence often leads us in unforeseen directions. It's difficult enough to make correct decisions at the end of the process, without foreclosing options at the beginning. However, Iwould liketo see us make more use of a Q&A format.
   3/ By the time a case opens, the parties have usually said all they are likely to say of any value, and the most important contributions are likely to be from other observers, who are as much witnesses as spectators.
   4/ we do prefer topic bans when possible. We have increasingly been using them. They often do not work smoothly, for there is great difficulty in defining the exact scope, and that tends to lead to wikilawering about the boundaries. Nowadays, most cases that might result in topic bans are dealt with before they get to us.
   5/ AE can certainly use improvement. The problem is to make it more sticky than an ordinary block, but not so sticky that errors cannot be corrected. I do not know how to achieve the right balance; the only thing I am sure of is that we have not yet got it. Your proposal of a time delay for comments makes sense to me, and that might be a partial solution.
   6/ Yes, Allowing proposed motions might be useful, but I am not sure just what you have in mind ?

Question from Mark Arsten

2. Hi David, thanks for running for Arbcom. My questions are about account security.
   What are your thoughts on the handling of the recent incident in which several administrator accounts were compromised? Do you think that technical or policy changes need to be made as a result? Also, are you confident in the security of your e-mail and Wikipedia accounts?

   There is such a thing as password paranoia. For WP accounts, there is no irreversible damage anyone with less than developer permissions can do. Even oversighted data is visible in various illegitimate mirrors. A more significant problem is the mailing lists--and here password paranoia sets in, since I and several other current arbs have no access to the mailing list archives because there was no acceptable technical way to authorize us. IRC is a real danger, but I do not use IRC. My passwords for WP and email are distinct from anything else I use. I will use 2FA until the WP version has been better tested.

Questions from Carrite

2. Thanks for running. This year's ArbCom took very few cases and seems to have kept to deadlines more expeditiously. I think most everyone can agree that this was for the good. What do you think was the biggest mistake made by ArbCom in 2016? What letter grade (A to F) would you give their performance? What could they do better?

   I will generalize to the entire 2 years I've been on arb com. In one case, an editor being harassed outside WP asked that we deal with it in a way that might avoid bringing harm on them in the RW, though at the expense of the person's standing in WP. We did so, but it failed to protect them. We should have known it wasn't likely to work.

4. Do you read or post at Wikipediocracy? What is your opinion about this off-wiki criticism site? Do you feel it is a malicious venue for harassment or a positive tool for off-wiki discussion of Wikipedia's periodic problems or something in between these extremes?

   I read it. I do not post there. It is both a malicious venue for harassment and a positive tool for off-wiki discussion of Wikipedia's periodic problems. As a general rule, everything very useful is also dangerous, though the proportion varies.

Questions from Begoon

2. Are you pleased or disappointed with what the committee has done during your tenure?

   pleased we accomplish what we did; displeased that we did not accomplish more

4. What decision, if any, during your tenure do you feel has been most enhanced through your personal contribution, in the sense that you feel that your presence made a positive difference? I suppose I'm asking what you are most proud of contributing to the proceedings you have been a part of.

   The Rambling Man, remedy 1, [1] in the hope that it makes clear that arb com will actively enforce policies about admin behavior.

6. It's a long time ago, but during the WifiOne case I expressed concern that an admin had blocked a user who had not edited for a long time and the reason for the block seemed unclear. You seemed to share that concern, and said you would look into it with a view to unblocking. It's water under many bridges by now, and probably supremely irrelevant, but I'm still curious about any follow-through there was - did anything at all ever come of that?

   Begoon, Please give me the link.

Sorry. I spent half an hour looking for an exact diff, and can't find one. Wikipedia search is shit. Perhaps I misremembered. I think his name was Makrandjoshi, and I see that user was actually unblocked - but I probably got that wrong too. -- Begoon 14:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC): reply

Questions from Opabinia

I debated whether to post these for the current arbs after asking the former arbs, and decided the fairest thing to do is post them with the disclaimer that it's fine to ignore my ramblings ;)

2. Case load is way down. Email volume is holding steady, but is still way down from its peak. ARCA requests are up slightly, but not too bad. Attention to this election is down compared to last year. We're slowly becoming irrelevant, and not in a bad way. Meanwhile, though, the most common community dispute resolution venue is ANI, with which there is long-standing and widespread dissatisfaction.

   I'm interested in your thoughts on the general state of dispute resolution on Wikipedia. What do you think about this trend toward fewer cases? Do you have any ideas on how to improve the committee's efficiency at ARCA? What if anything can the committee do to help at ANI?

   In the past, most arb com members have not participated at AN/I. Reason's vary: even before arbcom, ==just as you said--I found the procedure there so chaotic and unsatisfactory that I stayed away unless there was something specific I could do. Now, I am in addition reluctant to comment because it might over-influence the discussion--certainly I'm now very reluctant to close. A few arb com members do now actively participate. Perhaps the rest of use should consider it: it might lend some stability. At ARCA most of the problem has been the committee's fault--we need as a group to be more systematic in dealing with them. As an additional problem, AE may not be chaotic, but I often consider it much too rigid and arbitrary and very unwilling to consider individual circumstances. Normally arb com members deliberately leave it to others, unless there's a question of explaining the original intent. Perhaps we should offer more guidance.

4. What aspects of the committee's work did you find most (or least) satisfying since you've been a member? Do you expect this to change much in a new term?

   The first year was difficult, because almost none of the existing arbs were willing to support changes in the direction of less rigid procedure, or a willingness to enforce the terms of use (or even consider them binding) , especially about undeclared paid editors, or an openness to disclosing in-committee votes even when privacy was not needed, or a willingness to consider the balance between the gain for the encyclopedia and proper treatment for people. Many of the votes in that period showed almost nobody supporting my proposals, and I had very little practical role in drafting cases. This year is better: even though on many of these questions I am still in a minority, I am not usually alone.

Question from Banedon

2. I have a question about this edit [2]. Switching positions here can be interpreted as being open-minded and willing to change your opinion in the face of contrary arguments. It can also be interpreted as succumbing to peer pressure. What are your thoughts on this, and do you think that blinding every arbitrator from how the other arbitrators are voting is desirable? Banedon ( talk) 06:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC) reply

   Neither; Choosing between the two remedies was a matter of guesswork about what would be sufficient, and it might have seemed like personal over-stringency if I alone held out for the stronger. It was pointed out in discussions that the stronger remedy could be adopted later if necessary. DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Question from *thing goes

Regarding security in e-mail-communication, especially when it comes to potentially sensitive information about “editors”:

1. Do you deem unencrypted e-mail-communication with said content sufficiently secure and private?
2. Would you strive to see your policy regarding that matter realized?

--18:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

1. The practical risk from the email system that arbcom uses is not from the transmission of the mail or the mail server, but that someone with authorized access to the contents chooses to disclose it. This has happened in the past, long before I joined arb com, and no technical measures can prevent it.
2. While I have been on arb com, everyone is very careful about this; the policy is already unmistakably clear. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Question from The Rambling Man

2. In relation to the recent 'Arbcom case' which saw my eventual de-sysopping and active sanctions against me, would you accept a case in which dozens of individuals had been canvassed and encouraged to contribute, all of whom had been notified because they had been in conflict with the subject for one reason or another over the past decade?

   Do you mean a case against the people canvassing, or a case against some other person, about which a lot of people have canvassed?

Questions from Antony-22

2. In general, does enforcing civility harm free speech? Does it help it? What is the line between incivility and harassment?

   Harassment is usually deliberate ,though sometimes people who lack sensitivity can cross over into it without realizing. But in general, enforcing a reasonable amount of civility helps free speech, by encouraging more people to join the discussion--or the project.

4. Wikipedia relies primarily on volunteer labor, and many are attracted to Wikipedia in part due to its countercultural nature of subverting traditional gatekeepers to knowledge. Recently there has been increasing participation by professionals through formal programs in GLAM institutions, universities, and government agencies. This is perhaps causing some angst that if workplace standards of decorum are enforced on Wikipedia, existing editors will be driven out. How can volunteers and professionals with different standards of conduct be made to coexist on Wikipedia with the minimal disruption to our existing contributor base?

   There has to be a balance, but where the balance lies is not obvious. Fortunately, our existing contributor base is considerable more polite than in earlier years.

6. More specifically, let's say a professional at one of these institutions complains to ArbCom that another editor is using uncivil language that violates their organizations' internal rules, and thus their engagement with Wikipedia is jeopardizing their job. What considerations would go into ArbCom resolving such a case?

   This is normally dealt with elsewhere. Even when privacy is involved, we have OTRS.

8. Arbcom's actions have come under scrutiny from the outside press in the past. Do you think the Arbcom has a role in educating reporters about cases when they come under such scrutiny, to reduce the factual inaccuracies that sometimes creep into these articles?

   Sensible people do not do their own press releases, but leave it for specialists.

Questions from George Ho

2. If a person subject to the case avoided one of the phases of the accepted ArbCom case, how would the person's avoidance or boycott affect the overall results of the case?

   We can only judge on the basis of the evidence we have, the arguments presented, and the indications that people are will to change, but we try to be fair to everyone involved.