Probably never, except incidentally: it’s not the right took for the job (see WTT’s response to same question, no need for repetition). Also, you’re begging the question: Paid editing is not prohibited, per se.
To what extent, if any, should the Arbitration Committee endorse the adoption of two-factor authentication on Wikipedia?
To protect against compromise of advanced permissions (cu,os,intadmin), holders of which are generally technically savvy and equipped enough to implement 2FA. I don’t think it should be forced on administrators in its current form.
What do you think about the decision to accept Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort? In particular, considering the lack of prior dispute resolution attempts or attempt to use ANI to deal with the behavioural issues. Why or why not?
One of the recurring complaints I’ve seen about the arbitration process recently is that it requires “too much” prior dispute resolution. ANI itself has been deteriorating and degrading as an effective and adequately staffed/attended dispute resolution venue for quite some time. I’m not going to second-guess the decision to accept the case mentioned, hindsight being what it is. I will consider and raise the concern that the committee is too slow or reluctant to accept acrimonious cases.
I would say that the banning was a walk-up start and should have been handled at ANI, but the rest has had little effect on either side of what was basically a content dispute. It was a huge time sink and the benefits were minimal because it was almost entirely about content, not conduct, and ArbCom isn't here to look at content. It has also been weaponised against good-faith editors, with a recent attempt to re-litigate it. I hope ArbCom will steer clear of these sorts of cases in the future, unless behavioural problems have proved intractable and unable to be dealt with at ANI. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not seeing a follow up question. On the subject of content vs conduct, I would refer to Kelly Martin’s exceptional WO essay-post of 14 November 2019 (which has been republished on this project) for a potential remedy proposal to your concern.
Thanks. The point I take from this is that ArbCom should be considered our disciplinary committee, which frankly, I agree with. Discipline equals conduct in my view, and ArbCom has strayed well outside that remit in the last couple of years, with ARBGWE and the Poland case at the very least. Personally, having an extensive experience in a disputed area (WWII in Yugoslavia) I believe there are plenty of options available to deal with content disputes, including RSN and RfCs. So, based on your promotion of this essay, can I take it that you believe that ArbCom should get more involved in content disputes? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll have to read it again, but my understanding is that the essay suggests an editorial board that could hear content disputes, leaving the committee to focus on conduct concerns. Yes, there are noticeboard and RFCs but none of these have a formal structure and they lack a binding finality, which can lead to forum shopping and RfC fatigue.
Question from Leaky caldron
There have been occasional, some might say frequent instances, of a perceived bias in the way that prolific content creators are treated compared to members of the community who support the en-WP in other ways. Is this something you recognise? When these contributors end up at AC - how should they be treated?
I value such creators precisely because they do what I cannot, which is to create the meat and potatos that our readers enjoy (sometimes I provide some condiments). That doesn’t give them a free pass to treat other editors poorly. We have prolific content creators who get on with others just fine, and then we have a few who tend to respond to others in an abrasive manner. Now, I like to think that I’ve got fairly thick skin. Other editors might not. This is ultimately meant to be a collaborative and collegiate environment, and interpersonal remarks of an abrasive nature does not foster the same and could drive off editors of all types. That being said, “poking bears” does occur (baiting of those known to roar) and this harms the project also. My goal would be to look at the root behaviours on all sides, rather than the individual editors, to ensure a measured and balanced approach.
Question from Gerda
I commented in the Fram case, decision talk, like this. Imagine you had been an arb, what would you have written in reply?
The appropriate course of action was to unblock Fram, procedurally restore their administrative privileges as removed out-of-process, and initiating a proper case on that matter such that all parties could contribute properly. As an exercise in parallel construction and sequestering the accused, the case was an abject failure.
Thank you satisfied, another example of how easy this could be. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Cassianto
Last year, I was the named party in the ham-fisted Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions, that was brought about as a result of a biased committee not being impartial. The case should've been entitled Infobox 3, but the committee considered it to be too difficult to deal with the infobox problem and instead, made the case exclusively about me - suffice to say, the problem with infobox discussions still exist. I wondered whether, in future cases, not exclusive to IB discussions, you would consider it more important to deal with the cause rather than just the symptom?
It is important to define the scope of the case before it is opened. I’ve not been following the infobox disputes, but the “cause” there (I’m guessing) is a fundamental disagreement over editorial decisions, and the committee doesn’t rule on content. Accordingly, I’m not sure the committee itself would have been able to deal with what I’m presuming is the actual cause (an editorial disagreement over the appropriate use of infoboxes) rather than the symptoms rising out of those conflicts. We have no editorial board, and the last I checked the content noticeboard was not well staffed or attended, which is why such disputes typically end up at arbitration for bandaid remedies.
No, the cause is not editorial, but disruptive individuals starting RfC after RfC after RfC in order to get the answer they want. The byproduct of this repeated disruption is incivility through sheer frustration. But don't worry, the last committee "fixed" the byproduct, but guess what, the problem continued. I would ask that you have an understanding of this important issue as it will come up again, I'm sure. CassiantoTalk 17:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will work on acquiring a greater understanding should I be elected. My response was off the cuff and (as you have highlighted) unresearched. I believe portal space discussions are undergoing similar tumult.
Thanks, Xeno, much obliged for taking the time to respond to me. CassiantoTalk 21:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question from WereSpielChequers
Are there any circumstances where you would think it acceptable to give an editor a fixed term block without telling them why or what you expect them to desist from when they return? (Yes, this is a Fram related question).
Short answer, no. Blocks of this nature are chilling beyond the person affected and fail to serve the wider project goals of prevention and deterrent, focusing exclusively on punishment. Effective management of behaviour requires provision of insight to the party as to the scope and nature of their undesired actions. An accused party facing sanctions has a natural right to know the charge.
Thanks, I'm very happy with that answer. ϢereSpielChequers 15:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ought Arbitrators who have been personally involved in any way concerning the facts of a case recuse themselves from any related cases?
Yes: probably, though there may be times when the prior involvement was purely in an administrative capacity or limited in scope such that the arbitrator could recuse from portions of related cases rather than the entire case. I generally err on the side of caution when recusing: both on my own volition, and by request.
Ought the persons named in a case be given sufficient time to answer charges made by others, rather than have each be given the same time limits?
If I’m understanding what you’re asking, it makes sense on paper. One cannot simply walk allegations in at the last minute giving the accused no avenue of response. Some reasonable allowance should be made. Is this in regard to a specific case? My only concern would be if participants kept raising 11th hour charges, which would keep extending the evidence/workshop phases.
When an arbitrator proffers specific evidence on their own, ought the accused be permitted to actually reply to such "new evidence" as though it were timely presented, with the same time allowed for such a response?
As above. Evidence introduced by arbitrators should not be treated differently.
Can you provide an example of you mediating a conflict where both parties were mutually hostile?
Probably, but I don’t want to highlight a specific resolved conflict at such a high-visibility venue with the starting premise that both parties were hostile. You can look at my talk page and archives, I sometime resolve disputes there with an appeal to calm reasoned debate.
Once the new ARBCOM is in we'll be seeing an "RfC [with] focus on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future.". Personally, what particular questions/aspects would you want to see discussed? Along with that, many candidates note a balance to be drawn, but where would you actually draw a line if given the choice?
As far as the private nature of the complaint, most of us are on the outside looking in. I do feel the committee should continue to accept and consider private complaints of harassment. At the same time, except for the most egregious cases (in which case indefinite blocks and bans are available), the accused still has a right to know the charge and be given an opportunity to modify their behaviour that is being deemed harassment. I recently had a situation where a serious complaint was brought to me where the complainant did not want the complaint escalated beyond my eyes because they feared retaliation. I am not insensitive to this concern. In that situation, I worked from another angle to try to address the cause of the interpersonal conflict indirectly. If a complainant is not willing to allow the adjudicating body to communicate the allegations to the alleged party causing harassment, it may be necessary to suggest to the complainant that the committee will look at alternate options to address the root behaviour, while maintaining th caveat that this ultimately may prove impossible or ineffectual. Your question is actually quite broad. If you want me to elucidate, feel free to ask a follow up.
Followup 1: Thanks for a good answer to a somewhat willfully broad question. To consider one specific aspect, you stated the accused still has a right to know the charge - was that a literal "know the charge" or do you think knowing the charge also necessitates knowing all the evidence (e.g. the charge might be harassment, whereas the evidence would be various diffs and instances of that)? Nosebagbear (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's tough to speak hypothetically about this. For example, it wouldn't really be appropriate to take a complaint about X from Y and then turn around and find some diffs where X had gone after Z in a similar way, and say: "hey, look, don't do this stuff like you did to Z! to shield Y. So I am not unsympathetic to the position in which the committee was placed, and T&S clearly found themselves in a similar catch-22 if the complainant was not willing to grant permission to disclose the specific diffs (which were likely to identify the complainant). Without being able to demonstrate the behaviours that are being felt by the complainant as harassment to the accused, you are denying the accused party all reasonable form of response.
Which recent unblock discussion (anywhere, AN/ANI/CAT:RFU/UTRS/etc) are you most proud of your contribution to, and why?
Does Fram count? I think I spoke persuasively in defense of natural justice and basic fairness there. If not, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive314#Indefinite IP address blocks, I’m proud that there’s administrators still carrying on the tradition of examining indefinitely placed administrative actions and determining whether those actions should be lifted given the passage of time. This was something I particularly enjoyed during my more active administrative years.
Let's assume, and quite reasonably so, that there are some policies and guidelines that WP:IAR could never trump under any circumstances. WP:BLP immediately comes to mind, as well as other situations with real-world consequences, such as harassment etc. What policies or guidelines might WP:IAR trump? Specifically, for example, could it trump WP:CONSENSUS? How would you deal with a situation in which you felt the consensus was meaningfully wrong?
I’ve seen situations where people have claimed a consensus exists where the turnout was simply too low to make any reasonable determination based on the sample represented. There’s a thread on BN right now, for example, where two other bureaucrats disagree with my actions on a particular RfA. I’ve apparently ignored a rule written into a user essay when addressing ineligible contributions to an RfA. Now, there are many wonderful and helpful essays out there. But I do not subscribe to the belief that they should be adhered to without regard to the net effect of the actions dictated. User essays are just that, and typically do not demonstrate a robust consensus the same way that policies and guidelines often do. My usual approach when I feel that a consensus has been declared with too small a sample is to encourage a wider discussion (e.g.).
What's the biggest problem with Arbcom? Is it fixable or inherent?
I would say it is the immense pressure placed on the volunteers that staff it. These individuals are only able to contribute at their own unique times and volumes, which often leads to disorganization, attrition, and poor response times. It is fixable, with monetary support from the WMF to hire: 1) a secretary: to assist with committee workflows, keep minutes, log and acknowledge queries made to arbitrators both publicly and privately, and provide executive summaries on a weekly basis along with action items for each arbitrator, etc.; 2) an individual with dispute resolution experience to play a strictly advisory role to the committee and provide insight to those stepping into a role who often lack formal trained in dispute resolution or behaviour management; and 3) a lawyer willing to respond to arbitration committee questions swiftly (the general counsels during my tenure were excellent for this - is the relationship the same?). Failing that, an arbitrator or two have to be designated to coordinate business. During my time, Rogers Davies among others executed this role well and it's something I would offer to pick up for the outset.
Could you point to the last time you (excepting, then, the most recent candidatures) dealt with a sock attempting to vote at an RfA? (Hint: it was before December 2016.)
If the question has an answer-in-fact, could you provide the answer, and then expand on your question?Special:Diff/715456232
This, on the other hand, is an excellent approach. Will we see more of it?
Of course. Bureaucrats do not have complete visibility, and community comments as to the suitability of resysop requests should always be considered - and not discouraged, even if ultimately consensus is found that the concerns do not preclude the request.
How would you contextualise Peacemaker67's question on the 2018 GWE arbitration case with the more recent suggestion by one sitting arbitrator, who advised Peacemaker...Be careful that MILHIST doesn't become a place where that groupthink crowds out those who genuinely disagree, and another that MILHIST was counsel[ed]...to bear in mind that it does risk becoming a walled garden?
As an arbitrator, I always tended to spend an inordinate amount of time immersing myself in the cases I chose to sit on so that I could understand as best I could the situation at hand. Your question is asking about what looks to be a rather complicated case, and it’s asking me to remark directly on comments made by two other candidates standing in the election. If you are trying to tease out my opinion on some wider project ideal or norm, I would prefer you rephrase your question in more general terms and not relate it to GWE so that I won’t be required to do at least several hours of reading and comment about other candidates. Furthermore, it is entirely possible for GWE to come back to arbitration and commenting here off the cuff would compromise my ability in any subsequent case, clarification, or amendment request.
What are your thoughts about functionaries and other advanced permission holders discussing Wikipedia and other Wikimedians (in otherwise good standing) with WMF banned editors, specifically those who have a history of doxing and harassment?
Were there any votes in the last few years which you would have voted against what turned out to be the majority decision? If so, which, and why?
Fram remedy 2 should not have been enacted given that the evidence alleged to support the remedy was not presented for consideration, nor was the principal party given a fair opportunity to participate in their own case.
If the answer to the above is no, how would you have voted on certain remedies that split the current committee? Feel free to pick your own remedies; otherwise you can also choose from these: [1], [2], [3]. (Feel free to answer this question as well even if the answer to the above is "yes", although it likely won't be necessary.)
I would have been working to secure a lesser remedy for Rama while seeking assurances that they'd recognized their error in judgment- though I understand contrition was somewhat lacking on their part.
There's a case request today. [4] Would you accept it?
I mentioned portal space tumult elsewhere on this page and here it is. I’d be leaning towards accept, but need to have statements from the named parties. This has been boiling over for some time. I’ve not considered potential recusal areas in this response, which is based on Special:PermanentLink/926883100. Would you like me to revisit my response after another 24 hours or so?
It's up to you if you want to revisit your response - I'll be checking this right up till I submit my votes. Thanks for answer! One clarification: what do you mean by potential recusals? Are you saying you would have recused if you were currently an arbitrator? Banedon (talk) 02:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have past collaborative interactions with User:BrownHairedGirl (and probably User:Northamerica1000) that I would have to consider. I don’t think it would necessarily warrant recusal but I haven’t looked in depth (could on request). I’ve not done much with portal space and discussions, if anything. –xenotalk 02:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Still awaiting statements. I looked into interactions and they’ve been rather limited so nothing that would suggest recusal is necessary. –xenotalk 02:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed while reviewing the statements of this case that I closed RfA/NA1K 2 as successful 5 years ago: it was a borderline case, under somewhat unique circumstances. The fact that I didn't really remember indicates to me there is no bias on my part towards that party, but I'm always willing to hear recusal suggestions/requests. –xenotalk 13:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Still awaiting statements. One of the main parties put up a vacation notice (Special:Diff/927081706); the other continues to participate in portal space discussions (in Special:Diff/927215917, explaining their usage of the word “junk” in reference to a portal): they should be gently prompted to take a moment to compose a response to the case request before continuing activities in this sphere. –xenotalk 02:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gently prompted in the form of a courtesy note referencing here (Special:Diff/927223681), a reasonable explanation for the delay was provided. Still awaiting statements, which may not arrive until early December given the vacation note from the other named party. –xenotalk 01:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Statements have not yet been submitted by the main parties, nevertheless I would now vote to Accept the case so that the work can continue while the two main parties compose their thoughts. The fact is that the case was uploaded to AC rather explicitly in an ANI closure: the community is unable to handle it without the committee’s guidance and structure. –xenotalk 10:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Two years ago I did a study of ArbCom, available at [5]. in which I concldued that "A practical recommendation for Wikipedia in particular, and for other communities with collegiate courts in general, is that when electing members to their dispute resolution bodies, those communities would do well to pay attention to how much time the prospective future judges can devote to this volunteering task." In other words, may Arbitrators become inactive due to real world reasons (family, job) and this is not an exception but a rule, repeated time and again throughout ArbCom history. Do you think there is any practical way to deal with this, such as, for example, asking Arbitrators to obligatorily describe, in their election process, how they plan to ensure they have sufficient free time to devote to this activity?
[Response prior to reading paper] I was pointed to User:Risker/Thoughts for Arbitration Committee Candidates immediately below- this should be required reading for candidates. Having sat on the committee before, I am aware of the workload and have mentally prepared/blocked out time for it. All candidates should be encouraged to do the same. While still a volunteer position, it is very difficult to refill a dormant seat so this is a serious commitment to the project. Candidates should reasonably believe that for at least the next 12 months, they will be able to devote the necessary time to the work assignment; and, if they are appointed to a two-year term, to consider anew towards the end of their first year whether they will be able to do the same for the back half of their term.
In User:Risker/Thoughts for Arbitration Committee Candidates, she says "Know what you'll do if you don't win a seat. This is an important test. Will you continue participating in the building of the encyclopedia? In what areas do you plan on working? Some people have considerable difficulty resuming normal editing life after an unsuccessful run." What will you do if you're not elected?
(Special:PermanentLink/604940617) There’s a strong field of quality candidates, which is all I really wanted for the upcoming year. If I’m not elected, I’ll probably breathe a little sigh of relief and keep working on fulfilling the 2015 request from the community for bureaucrats to take a more active role clerking RfAs. I’ll admit to being somewhat concerned that nearly a fifth of the bureaucrat corps could be seconded to the committee, and encourage interested administrators and non-administrators alike to stand for the position of bureaucrat.
This question has three parts. A major role of the Arbitration Committee is to handle "serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve". Do you believe Arbitrators, individually or as a Committee, can help the community develop collective solutions before binding arbitration is necessary? If so, in what ways can the Committee help the community learn to handle disputes more effectively? Should they?
I think this isn’t really within the role of the committee: far too often is it confused as the “governing body” of Wikipedia and the community has been appropriately resistant to attempts from the committee to legislate from the bench. Individual arbitrators are sometimes well-placed to identify deficiencies earlier in the dispute resolution chain, but some arbitrators dive more deeply than others. As community members, they would be able to submit proposals to fill in gaps in WP:DR. For example: since the shuttering of WP:RFC/U, there is no venue short of arbitration to perform an organized review of an administrator’s conduct.
Apologies for late question. There has always been a lot of complaints about lack of communication and transparency with regards to the committee. While this issue is not new, it has never really been adequately addressed, aside from the ever presented hackneyed promises during election time. The complaints have been particularly vociferous recently. Please see this proposal and express your opinion on it. Would you support something like it (even if not exactly in this form) when on ArbCom?
(Special:PermanentLink/925934240) Yes, subject to the privacy considerations mentioned, I think the proposal is sound. I dreamed above about a “secretary” for the committee that could handle something like this, in the absence of that, a coordinating arbitrator. (I’d avoid the term spokesperson, as too loaded).
Yes the "spokesperson" thing was a failure of creativity on my part (I was tired), but it got the point across. Volunteer Marek 05:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Over this page, all of the arbitrators (sans PMC, who responded a single time) refused to engage a multitude of queries and concerns from multiple longstanding members of the community, despite the case being entirely situated on public evidence. I note this ATCN thread, as well.Do you feel that the displayed behavior abides by general community expectations of arbitrator conduct? Some have since stated that the concurrently running FRAMGATE meant that they had to be less devoted to this case; in such a situation, how would you have tackled this case (if anything different, at all)?
I’d say that a fairly significant majority of the community expects the committee and its members to be willing to consider and respond promptly to good faith concerns and queries, and this is a reasonable position. It seems like the participants in that case justifiably felt disregarded. If the arbitrators active on the case were spread too thin because of the Fram case and fallout (as well as attrition), then an extension should have been arranged.
Your fellow candidate, Gadfium writes:- Arbs should be highly responsive to community concerns on the talk pages of cases and that anyone who expresses an honest and constructive opinion should be taken seriously. Do you agree with the premises of these statements? Comment.
‘Highly responsive’ as in extremely quickly and positively, not necessarily (often queries are complicated and may require research and thought, also a positive response is not always possible); that semantic point aside, they should respond to good faith concerns seriously, yes.
Thanks, in advance, for your answers. ∯WBGconverse 08:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How do you feel about the right of reply and do you think this principle should be applied to Wikipedia biographies and/or Wikipedia dispute resolution, and if so, how?
(Special:PermanentLink/925014166) In Wikipedia dispute resolution it is rare to be denied the right of reply, which is why so many (including myself) were troubled by the structure of the Fram case. I’m not sure if you mean to say participants should have their own section on the PD page? They are usually free to comment on the PD talk page. As for biographical articles, that seems somewhat thorny. It would mean there would be a section of the article where the subject could write whatever they wish as a response? In general an article subject would be permitted to make comments on the talk page, which although not the same venue as the article proper is just one click away. I suppose they could request a “disputed - discuss” tag be placed on any challenged content.
After reading the prior questions, your responses, and scanning links to your activity wherever any were cited in either the Qs or As, it is clear to me that you would be an excellent member of ArbCom if elected. Your level of activity during 2012 is not pertinent to me now. My question pertains to the NB at the end of your candidate statement. My understanding is that ArbCom members are not required to be Administrators, however I request clarification about this: "...during the current period of uncertainty with respect to administrative conduct enforcement I have chosen to relinquish that user group." (Conduct related violations aren't enforced retroactively. We are Wikipedia, not a court of law. We don't have a penal code with statutes of limitations.) Unless your past conduct was egregiously contrary to project norms, it is irrelevant to me whether or not you hold Administrator privileges. Was your past conduct as an Administrator egregious? Rather, was it of such a nature that--if continued--would be non-compliant with ArbCom conduct policy?
The FRAM event showed that the Foundation felt empowered by their 'partial and temporary bans' procedure to take unilateral action on administrator accounts without regard to the commonly-accepted dispute resolution processes existing on our project, and without the ability for the affected user to appeal such decisions. It is in this context that I chose to relinquish administrative privileges, rather than operate in an environment of uncertainty. I know of no past conduct on my part that would attract the attention of the Foundation/T&S or that is non-compliant with arbitration conduct expectations, but FRAM similarly took me by surprise. For greater certainty: I've never been contacted by T&S with respect to my conduct; and the last time the committee contacted me was a gentle reminder about oversight activity expectations, leading me to relinquish that user group (Special:Diff/854076206). If you have any follow-up queries, please feel free.
This was what I was trying to ascertain: "I've never been contacted by T&S with respect to my conduct". Thank you! I appreciate the additional details, and broader context you provided.--FeralOink (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Questions from Robert McClenon
Some of the most important decisions by arbitrators are whether to accept or decline cases. What principles will you follow on voting on whether to accept cases that may be within the scope of arbitration, as opposed to declining the cases and leaving them for the community?
I’ve been seeing complaints that the committee’s requirements for prior dispute resolution are too stringent, especially in regards to administrator conduct. Since the closing of RFC/U, there is no structured/organized way to source community input or provide corrective direction to users except by ad hoc discussions at AN or ANI which can be poorly attended, inconsistent, and generally unsatisfactory for the participants. Accordingly, I may be more willing to accept cases concerning administrator conduct even if it hasn’t been taken to AN/ANI a half-dozen times.
Do you think that the initial T&S action in banning Fram was a valid exercise of responsibility by Trust and Safety, a completely unjustified overreach by T&S, or something in between, such as an over-reaction by T&S to an existing weakness in the English Wikipedia's sanctions regime?
It looks like unjustified overreach, without seeing the undisclosed evidence. There did not appear to be a clear and present need to disregard existing community processes.
In recent years the ArbCom has almost always been significantly late in issuing proposed decisions. The current PIA4 case is an example. Do you propose any action to reduce these delays, such as either shortening the delay between closing of the workshop and posting of the proposed decision, or providing a longer target date?
I’d rather reach a good decision slowly, than a bad decision quickly. It may be that the Proposed Decision target dates are being set too optimistically, or not adjusted when the drafting arbitrators realize they may miss the mark.
Question from Pharaoh of the Wizards
What is your position on undisclosed paid editing and what do you see as arbcom's role in enforcement of the WP:TOU?
Paid editors are required to disclose that they are compensated for their editing: Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Undisclosed paid editing would not typically rise to the level of arbitration, as it is generally handled at the administrative level though privacy implications may require the committee to hear concerns privately. The Arbitration Committee's role is to enforce local Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, usually in situations where the previous administrative processes have not been effective.
What is the single thing you'd like to improve the most in ArbCom?
Fairness and due process for participants.
Why does the source code of this page (questions to Xeno, Arbcom elections 2019) look in a non-standard way (the code is very short and I see a few inputboxes?
It looks like you initially posted this question on my candidate page, rather than my questions page (Special:Diff/928580201), which has some code to allow the creation of the candidate subpages). It also transludes this page.