Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Questions from Collect[edit]

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

   No. There must always be due consideration of the option that no sanctions will ultimately be required to resolve the issues in a case. All cases should be approached with an open mind to the possible outcomes.

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?

   In general, yes - provided their actions go beyond this disclaimer at WP:INVOLVED: "Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'."
   
   So if an administrator has interacted with an editor in an admin capacity only, and done so in "calm and reasonable discussion," they might reasonably be seen as acting impartially if they subsequently use the tools. But for avoidance of doubt, if an admin tells an editor that they personally dislike them, they should probably leave subsequent janitorial action to someone else. An editor who feels an admin is acting partially should raise it with that admin and, if required, escalate it to AN/ANI and/or Arbcom.
   
   Note that the above is a general statement; I'm not aware if this question refers to any specific incident.

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?

   a. Yes of course. Editing is a volunteer activity and real life commitments come first. However there's a reasonableness test, and a very extended delay can become unfair for other participants. If a key case participant seeks a delay because they're going to be away, then the Committee should make genuine efforts to accommodate that. However if they request indefinite or very long delay, then there may come a time when the case should proceed on the evidence at hand. Named parties also have no strict obligation to take part; if they wish, they can let their editing record speak for itself. There can be no instinctive prejudice against a case participant who doesn't take part in the actual case.
   
   b. Yes. There are word limits for cases but I've always supported extensions for those that request them.
   
   c. Not usually, though the Committee shouldn't let formality obstruct fairness. Rebuttal ideally occurs in the /Workshop phase, which gives plenty of time to respond to last-minute material introduced at /Evidence. New allegations or evidence should not be raised in the Workshop itself (though obviously rebuttal itself can involve the provision of new material). Short version: I think this issue can be addressed by careful adherence to the purpose of the current case phases.
   
   d. Arbitrators are not limited to resolving a case only on the material presented in the /Evidence phase, but they should be aware of this section in ARBPOL. Further, subject to the usual disclaimers on confidential matters, if an arbitrator has entirely new evidence that they want to rely on in a PD they should also raise it during earlier case phases so participants can respond. This not a Star Chamber, and there should be no evidence "surprises" at the PD stage.

Thank you. Collect (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Kyohyi[edit]

2. If editor A and Editor B are interaction banned with each other. Per BANEX, Can editor A bring complaints about editor B that are not about the interaction ban to dispute boards or admin talk pages?

   I sense this may be about a specific example, about which I'd need more context to give a definitive answer. But as a rule of thumb: No, subject to the exceptions in WP:BANEX dot point one. Worth noting that interaction bans can be challenging to apply, so one-off breaches are sometimes deserving of good faith.

--Kyohyi (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Biblioworm[edit]

Consider the following ideas for reforming ArbCom:

2. 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.)

   Yes in principle. Per WP:ARBPOL, the first and central duty of Arbcom is: ” to act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve.” This is the activity against which we assess the suitability of ArbCom candidates. Other than a general view of how responsible and well-meaning they seem, we aren't selecting ArbCom members with the skill sets to expertly handle child safety, libel, stalking or offwiki vilification. These are specialist fields whose legal or wellbeing components are better handled by professional staff. Despite this, we vest them in Committee in the absence of other places to go.
   
   In a perfect world these tasks would be redistributed to paid professionals , and the Committee could focus on its primary purpose - resolving intractable onwiki conduct issues. I know this has been a priority for other ArbCom members over time, if re-elected I would also make it a priority to pursue with the WMF.
   
   However, two issues:
   
   - Regrettably we're not yet at that perfect world. From memory of 2015 the WMF took some steps forward in taking over child protection and in providing limited support for victims of online stalking; but there was a long way to go. Assuming no further WMF action, the Committee ends up being the least worst place for these issues to reside, and we as a community should pick the arbitrators who will do the least worst job at it while keeping up the pressure for additional professional expertise. Note "least worst", not "next best."
   
   - A smaller and unrelated qualifier on the principle: while agreeing on child safety, libel and harassment matters, I'm not clear on the reference to redistributing functionary issues. If it refers to functionary candidate vetting, I support the Committee continuing its current role. This is a swift and useful task which the Committee seems able to provide without an overt conflict of interest. In the spirit of “it ain’t broke” I would leave this where it is. If the reference is to hearing complaints about functionary misconduct, I would leave this with the Committee too as it fits within the primary Arbcom role.

4. Streamline ArbCom case procedures by: 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.

   Yes to the first half - I've committed to case scope statements as outlined here. Yes in principle to the second, noting that cases sometimes take unexpected turns as evidence comes to light, so there must be some capacity for published revisions. These should be very much an exception rather than the rule, and should occur via onwiki amendment (and discussion) on the case page.

6. Streamline ArbCom procedures by: 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).

   Support "tightly restricting" and note that if the case scope is made very clear at the outset it should be easier to keep subsequent contributions on topic.

8. 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.

   Agree with greater consideration of temporary rather than indefinite bans. Agree that topic bans should always be seriously considered where applicable (note for example this case which I co-drafted and for which topic bans and 1RR were the maximum action required).

10. 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.

    Agreed, and already committed to here. 24 hours seems a decent minimum period, and consistent with what at least informally applies on certain discussion at ANI. I don't support turning AE discussions into a slow-moving !vote, but a brief waiting period would at least allow discussion of the issue. Note that an exception would have to apply to matters involving immediate and ongoing disruption to editing.
    
    In passing, in 2015 there was a general view that Committee members shouldn't contribute at AE for fear of becoming too involved in disputes and having to recuse in later cases. In hindsight I don't agree with this; the Committee should be actively involved in providing advice at AE on how to interpret its decisions.

12. 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.

    Interesting idea; if there's genuine community backing for such a mechanism I'd be happy to support with some modest conditions about scope, and on speedy removal of frivolous motions or personal attacks.

2. 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.

   A final general comment: Hopefully the above demonstrates support for streamlining and simplifying the Committee's tasks, and particularly for devolving those for which the Committee is not well suited to perform. It's worth adding that these proposals for change are not a reflection on any current or past Committee; they are an endorsement of the need for some evolution in Arbcom's role. Older procedures fitted the times; some new procedures may currently be required.

Thank you. Biblio (talk) Reform project. 22:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Mark Arsten[edit]

2. Hi Euryalus, 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?

   The incident: The practicalities of this immediate incident were handled pretty well - compromised accounts were swiftly globally locked, and their edits reverted. I suspect we still haven't seen the end of these current compromised accounts, and am concerned that it remains unclear how their passwords were obtained, and what they have in common. Damage to date was mild vandalism, but let's not assume that this continues with any further hacked accounts in this set. As a statement of the obvious I suggest every administrator should change their password and activate 2FA.
   
   Technical improvement: I support the introduction of 2-factor authentication as a technical improvement to account security. I think the timing of this is coincidental, but its worth having. It might also help to mandate password changes after a certain time; though I appreciate this risks a drop in password quality.
   
   Policy improvements: The single most useful change was removing admin permissions from inactive accounts. To a lesser extent, enforcing activity requirements for CU/OS also offers security gains. And as a statement of the obvious, everyone should follow the advice at WP:PASSWORD. In passing that policy refers to limited WMF audits of password strength; I've not seen this occur in practice but suggest it would be an excellent idea.
   
   My accounts: No one should ever feel entirely confident in the security of their accounts. However I've activated 2FA and taken the other usual security steps, and that has proved sufficient so far.

Questions from Carrite[edit]

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?

   Hi Carrite. Hard to see any major issues in what was a fairly quiet year. I agree with Newyorkbrad that the Michael Hardy case turned a comparatively minor dispute into a larger one, but that's water under the bridge. Overall a B+ for the year, with points for meeting deadlines, managing a smooth functionary election and revisiting some older remedies and decisions.

2. 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'm aware of the site but am not a regular reader and have never posted there. It's probably both a positive and a negative, depending on the issue and participants; I'm not close enough to it to offer more specific views.
   
   Addendum: Have now had more of a read of the site. Regrettably my view on it reads like a statement of the obvious, but here it is anyway:
   
   - Philosophically, I support the concept of criticism sites provided they focus on organisations and not individuals. There needs to be an opportunity for people to point out the flaws in any large institution like en-WP - and if discussions flow freely at an offwiki site and then lead to useful suggestions for on-wiki change, that's great. Of course if participants wants those suggestions for change enacted, they'll need to bring them back on-wiki first. In passing I do also wonder if Wikipediocracy has been around so long that it has itself become an institution.
   
   - On a cursory read, there's some useful criticism and analysis at Wikipediocracy, particularly in the blog posts. There's also plenty of random personal abuse between long-term contributors, but that seems to be the nature of the place and most participants don't seem to mind. However: as a statement of the obvious, its easy for open forum discussions to move from banter to personal attacks to outing and vilification. When this occurs, the site itself risks crossing the line into a venue for harassment of others. I haven't read every thread, and offwiki sites are (usually) outside the remit of Arbcom; but I can imagine this harassment occurring if thread moderation isn't strong.
   
   - Overall I support the concept of Wikipediocracy. But I reaffirm my earlier view that the site is "somewhere in between" your descriptors, depending on the day-to-day content and how the moderators respond to harassing posts.
   
   I appreciate that this is a predictable response, but your question deserved the courtesy of a more detailed reply.

Question from Rschen7754[edit]

2. You resigned halfway through your two-year term in December 2015. You explain this as follows: "My record shows I don't consider Arbcom a "job for life"; I worked on the Committee for a year, then left to spend the next year writing articles and working at ANI. One year later, I’d like to again contribute to resolving the kind of complex cases that are Arbcom's work." Others might say that you did not complete your elected term, and look at your candidacy negatively because of this. What would you say to this line of thinking? --Rschen7754 01:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for what is an entirely fair question. Apologies for the long answer and what reads like overly formal wording.
   
   The philosophical bit
   
   Arbcom members are elected to do a specific job for a specific time. This sits alongside the reality of a volunteer website which encourages every editor to contribute wherever they feel most useful. I was elected to Arbcom in 2014, hopefully did a reasonable job of it over time, and then felt that I could make an equally valuable contribution in a different area. As I'm an opponent of holding advanced permissions just because you can, I was content to carefully wind up my Arbcom tasks and pass the spot along to the next batch of janitors. Mildly, I don't think criticism should attach to any editor who chooses to move between janitorial and content work from time to time; both activities are of value and I'd contend that janitors who have an understanding of content work are actually more effective in interpreting dispute context and resolution.
   
   The practicalities
   
   Noting the above: it's obviously essential that anyone who chooses to vacate a position does so in a responsible way. Arbcom deals with protracted and complicated issues, and they're not helped by an Arbitrator just disappearing along the way. That's why I took the following steps when stepping down:
   
   1. Early warning: First, I deliberately timed my announcement to allow my place to be filled at a regular election. The retirement was flagged in September 2015 so candidates could evaluate their November election runs with full knowledge of the number of vacancies and the continuing Committee skill set;
   2. Post-election: After the 2015 Arbcom elections, I remained on the Committee to participate fully in its work until the formal handover on December 31. This was done to ensure that my decision to return to fulltime content work would not disrupt any ongoing Arbcom dispute. From memory my last general Committee action (which was to vote on a ban issue) was less than 24 hours before my term officially expired on December 31;
   3. Loose ends: Post handover, I remained with the Committee through to mid-January 2016 to finish up the Kevin Gorman case. Only then, with all obvious tasks from my term resolved, did I move on to the content work I'd initially resigned to do.
   
   The above reads defensively, but it's not intended to be. I suppose the point I'm seeking to convey is that I took (and take) the Committee's responsibilities seriously, made sure I completed outstanding tasks and ensured a smooth transition before moving on to equally worthwhile content creation work.

Questions from Opabinia[edit]

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.

   Thanks for the questions. Apologies for the very lengthy reply.
   
   On ANI
   ANI has strengths and weaknesses. Simple disruptive editing, returning trolls and obviously offensive conduct can be addressed pretty fast. It’s also a useful forum for editors with an interest in dispute resolution, to offer advice or comments on day-to-day conduct issues before (or instead of) becoming janitors themselves.Where ANI falls down is with obscure or lengthy disputes, especially ones with fault on all sides. These tend to stagnate or get even worse at ANI as editors pile on, walls of text develop and tangential remedies get proposed and ignored. The length of the ANI thread becomes inversely proportional to the likelihood of an effective close, and participants get frustrated, bored or bitter as time moves on. ANI’s janitors get overwhelmed with the thread minutiae, and the entire thing then gets archived without action. Unsurprisingly, this is sub-optimal.
   
   In addition, there’s little corporate memory at ANI. It’s possible to be subtly disruptive for quite a while - running up vague admonishments and warnings - before anyone notices the pattern. It’s also possible to drag another editor to ANI multiple times in quick succession, seeking sanctions on the basis that ”where there’s smoke there’s fire.” These both arise because ANI’s archives are insufficiently used, and there are too few “regulars” to give swift recall of the history of current arguments.
   
   So should we send all these unresolved cases from ANI to Arbcom?
   No. That may have happened in the past when there were 100 Arb cases a year, but not today. Some reasons why:
   - It’s not why we have Arbcom: the last resort cannot also be the first response and to make it so would cut too much across community involvement in the way it handles its affairs;
   - Current Arbcom processes are far too slow and bureaucratic to deal with that many cases; and
   - By the time an ANI dispute reaches the massive spammy stage where it won’t be locally solved, most participants are exhausted and unwilling to spend another six weeks relitigating it from scratch.
   
   So what should be done?
   The ANI answer is not rocket science. We need:
   - more experienced editors (and/or admins) willing to take part in ANI disputes of all kinds
   - greater internal consistency and corporate memory in the way ANI disputes get handled, and
   - most importantly, more editors/janitors willing to wade in on the long and acrimonious threads, before they metastasize into something no one can resolve.
   
   And one more: we need more focus on ANI ‘’responses’’ that are calm, careful and courteous – it never hurts to be polite and responsive, and it can do wonders in bringing disputes to a close.
   
   Some very self-serving examples of what I mean in closing complex ANI threads are here, here and here.
   
   In passing, I appreciate the irony of this ANI-related wall of text to highlight the problems of ANI walls of text.
   
   What about dispute resolution generally?
   I’m more optimistic about general (non-ANI) dispute resolution on en-WP, because it happens every day across millions of talkpages and for the most part it’s seamless, good-natured and consensus-driven. There are exceptions (for example some of the areas subject to DS); but the community handles most “content” conflicts quite well. Structures like the Teahouse and Third Opinions are also useful when tempers get frayed, but regrettably the supportingconcept of editor mentoring seems to have entirely died.
   
   And despite the sunny optimism above, we still struggle with the responses to genuine harassment and abuse, especially where it intersects with offwiki sites. I can expand on that in a separate question if preferred; the issue is also amply demonstrated in some recent Arbcom cases and in discussions at Wikipedia_talk:Harassment.

2. 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?

   Fewer cases
   In general it reflects some good decisions by the current committee in rejecting requests that might be dealt with elsewhere. There are also occasional peaks in troughs in activity – 2015 had many more cases than 2016, and some (eg. Gamergate) were appropriately Arbcom’s to resolve. Less positively, it might suggest an ongoing weariness with the length and formality of Arbcom proceedings, and an unjustified fear that being party to proceedings is to risk sanctions for no reason. To the extent these views are held in the community, the Committee needs to act to address them. Overall, the trend away from Arbcom cases is a good one if (and only if) the matters remitted back to ANI or elsewhere are then actually effectively dealt with at those locations.
   
   ARCA efficiency
   Speaking from my own experience, the biggest problems at ARCA are in maintaining the whole Committee’s focus on the minute details of old cases, and then obtaining majority support for any particular outcome. ARCA often involves careful re-reading of old cases, reinterpretation of the findings, consideration of whether time has healed old wounds, and so on. There may then be two or three equally valid proposals on the table. When each attracts some but not majority support, the entire ARCA stalls.
   
   So, how about this as an untested suggestion: ARCA could be more effective if the Committee delegated each particular matter to subcommittees of (say) 5 or 7 Arbs, who could then resolve it by majority vote. This would allow greater focus, reduce the formality of proceedings and deliver swifter responses. The subcommittees could operate for fixed terms (like the old BASC and AUSC memberships); or a new group could be formed for each ARCA. I prefer the former, but either would be a step forward. And presumably the whole committee could over-rule a subcommittee if they thought it had the resolution wrong.
   
   Like I said, just an untested suggestion. From past experience ARCA can certainly be sclerotic; and the above might be worth a try.
   
   What if anything can the committee do to help at ANI?
   The Committee can help at ANI in their roles as experienced editors or regular admins. I appreciate there’s a risk that a matter you resolve at ANI later becomes an Arbcom case from which you must recuse; but with 15 Arbs the occasional recusal is no big deal. I continued to work at ANI during my term on the Committee, and from memory I only needed to recuse on one matter throughout my term.

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

   The most satisfying part of my past Committee work was when the workshop phase was effectively used to bring participants to the table and get discussion under way. That’s the only advantage of Arbcom’s formality – it can keep discussion on track, give everyone a fair say and help bring the real issues to the fore. As an example, I think the workshop was effectively used here. FWIW the least satisfying part of my past experience was the Committee's semi-regular failure to reach consensus on emailed ban appeals, even where the issues were pretty plain. This has likely been addressed by devolution from BASC to UTRS
   
   Given there’s one hour to voting, I may as well reiterate that this matches the view in my candidate statement – Arbcom is most rewarding when participants communicate well, have a calm attitude and show willingness to consider feedback.I wouldn’t expect this to change in a new term.
   
   And I suppose I’d also add this general point: Arbcom work is also more satisfying when Committee members and case participants remember that this is a volunteer website, and that ‘’most’’ people are here to make a good faith contribution to the sum of human knowledge. Arbcom isn’t a court and no one is “on trial;” the role of proceedings is to break the back of a difficult dispute so that regular editing can resume. Matters that reach Arbcom can be grinding, tedious, obtuse and (sometimes) obscure; it’s useful (and more rewarding for all) if they’re approached with the above spirit in mind.

Question from *thing goes[edit]

2. Regarding security in e-mail-communication, especially when it comes to potentially sensitive information about “editors”: Do you deem unencrypted e-mail-communication with said content sufficiently secure and private? Would you strive to see your policy regarding that matter realized?

   No one should ever assume their emails are entirely private and secure. Arbitrators (and other functionaries like CU/OS) routinely have access to confidential personal information. They should take every reasonable step to (a) protect that information from unintended circulation, and (b) ensure that it's used only for the purpose for which it was collected. If email encryption is workable in the context of Arbcom email accounts and archives, then I'd be in favour of its introduction as an additional security measure.
   
   I'd also add that there's a role for good user conduct alongside technical protections. By that I mean unique and complex passwords that are regularly changed; and not logging in to Arbcom email accounts via unsecured networks or public PCs.

Question from The Rambling Man[edit]

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?

   The canvassing was a clear breach of the policy, by a long-term editor who should have known better. I would have supported sanctions against that editor at the time, to prevent this ongoing disruption of the case. The canvassing itself would not have affected my views on whether to accept the case; these would be based on the merits of the argument and not the number of people arguing it.
   
   The question didn't ask about case outcomes, but here's some views in passing: Case outcomes are not about "punishing" people, they're about making sure content work continues at maximum effectiveness. On which basis I would have opposed the desysop motion (PD remedy 1) for the same reasons as Opabinia regalis, and opposed the topic ban (PD remedy 3). I would have supported PD remedies 4 and 7.2. I would probably also have supported a no-fault interaction ban, though experience shows i-bans can be an ineffective tool.

Questions from Antony-22[edit]

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

   Mildly, enforcing civility is nothing to do with free speech; its to do with ensuring that the editing environment is conducive to the process of effective, collaborative content creation. If people are seeking a right to free speech, they can go to any one of millions of other sites or bulletin boards and exercise it to their heart's content. If they want to work collaboratively on an encyclopedia, then they should come here. In passing, Wikipedia is a privately owned website and there is no inherent "right to free speech" that attaches to being an editor.
   
   There's quite detailed policy on incivility, and I won't rehearse its entire contents here. The key point is really these lines: - "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments. Especially when done in an aggressive manner, these often alienate editors and disrupt the project through unproductive stressors and conflict. While a few minor incidents of incivility that no one complains about are not necessarily a concern, a continuing pattern of incivility is unacceptable."
   
   Civility usually only means keeping sufficient rein on your temper that you're not routinely rude or belittling toward your fellow editors. A civil editing environment encourages more and better content creation; gross incivility is corrosive to editing, and reduces community enthusiasm for building an encyclopaedia. It's important to note that I'm very clearly not referring to someone occasionally using a "bad word" or getting irritated at some one-off incident; what I am referring to is long-term unprovoked abusiveness that reduces the community's willingness to continue making content contributions. Someone or other said this is a shop floor and we are not here to sing kumbaya. That's correct, and we should (a) not go about hunting for things to be offended by, and (b) remember that this is an encyclopaedia and not a social media site. But part of this being a shop floor (and an encyclopaedia) is that people are genuinely here to work on article content; they should be able to do so without having to put up with personal abuse.
   
   Harassment is best described by this, from (paraphrasing from the policy): a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons … [to] make the target feel threatened or intimidated, or discourage them from editing.” It also includes actual or attempted outing, bullying, on- or offwiki stalking, and any actual real-world threats.
   
   Harassment is different from incivility in degree, and often also in motivation and type of conduct. Perceived incivility can sometimes be unintentional or the “heat of the moment”; genuine harassment is not. There's no credible excuse for harassment; editors who engage in it are routinely removed from the community.

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?

   At the risk of repeating other people's answer to this question: any changes to Wikipedia's standards of conduct for editing would be a matter for the community as a whole. Arbcom is a dispute resolution body and does not have a mandate for policy change. if there was a movement toward bringing in new or modified standards of conduct, they should proceed via RfC's on the relevant policy pages.

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 a volunteer website, and not subject to the internal rules of any editor's personal workplace. As with anything else, if someone finds that their volunteer activities conflict with their work responsibilities they will need to make their own decision about how to reconcile the two.
   
   But regardless of anyone's workplace rules, if another editor is uncivil to the point of disrupting the editing environment, then the issue should be raised directly with that editor, and if that fails it should be taken to ANI.

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?

   No. Arbcom members are welcome to talk to reporters on their own behalf, just like any other editor (but subject to observing confidentiality requirements on any private information). But Arbcom is just one part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, and Arbcom members have no special authority to speak to reporters as if they are representing either the Wikipedia community or dispute resolution as a whole. If media comment is required on behalf of Wikipedia it should come from communication staff at the WMF.

Question from User:Doc James[edit]

2. What is your position on undisclosed paid editing and what do you see as arbcom's role in enforcement of the WP:TOU?

   Strongly oppose undisclosed paid editing. Broadly oppose disclosed paid editing as well, but accept that it is permitted under certain conditions per WP:PAID.
   
   Note that Arbcom does not have the power to change this policy by fiat; the community owns its policies and needs to drive any change.
   
   The Terms of Use are binding on everyone who uses en-WP. Some TOU aspects (for example the clause on DMCA Compliance) are enforced by the WMF. Others are joint (for example bans on certain users can be global or local) or are enforced by groups like Arbcom on local wikis. Relevant to this question: the en-WP Arbcom's role is to enforce en-WP's policies on user conduct. The WMF has Terms of Use that apply to paid editing, but permits local wikis to impose different standards. On en-WP the WMF Terms of Use clause on paid editing is replicated in its entirety at WP:PAID, and this wording is therefore within Arbcom's responsibility to enforce.

Questions from George Ho[edit]

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?

   Hi. I answered this in the question from Collect, above:- Named parties have no strict obligation to take part; if they wish, they can let their editing record speak for itself. That may or may not be a wise choice, but either way it's entirely a matter for them. There can be no instinctive prejudice from the Committee against a named party who doesn't choose to take part.

4. Shall final decisions on a case made at least ten years ago be upheld? If so, do involved parties have abilities to propose amendments to those decisions? If decisions are not to be upheld by the community, how can you amend the decisions made ten years ago?

   Old Arbcom decisions remain in force unless/until they are modified via ARCA or by Committee motion. Proposed amendments to old decisions can be posted at WP:ARCA.

6. a) Can an ArbCom's choice to pass a remedy prompt an involved party to do something to avoid a remedy before the case is closed?
   b) How would that involved party's choice to perform or request an alternative to a remedy affect ArbCom's decisions on the case?
   c) If the involved person can't counter the remedy by alternatives before case closure, how would the passed remedy affect the involved party/parties?

   Do something like what? People,propose alternative remedies all the time, usually in the Workshop phase. Are you talking about alternative proposals during the actual PD? If so, they'd be considered in good faith by the committee. However I get the sense that you've got a specific scenario in mind; if so it would help to know what it was so there could be a more specific answer.
   
   On question (c): apologies but it's not clear what you're asking: if someone can't get a change to a remedy affecting them, then they're affected by whatever the remedy says in relation to their editing.

8. I'll specify: The majority of the Committee voted to revoke a person's administrative privileges, yet that person resigns from those duties before the decision became final. What if that person did not resign and did let the decision be final? Would the Committee or that person be antagonized for the decision to revoke the privileges?

   Apologies, I still don't understand what you're asking. If someone gets desysopped, they get desysopped. If they resign before the case closes, the Committee resolution usually reflects that decision and imposes conditions (if any) on regaining the tools.