Add your questions below the line using the following markup:
#((ACE Question
|Q=
|A=))
Editors should have an opportunity to rebut the evidence against them.
In most cases, I wouldn't support extending time, but evidence can be analyzed in the workshop. Rebuttals could be offered there and arbitrators would still read them. ArbCom cases are already quite long, and lengthening them even more is usually not a good idea.
In no circumstances, but as I advocated in my statement, arbitrators should be more active earlier in the case. If an arbitrator looks into the case and notices something they want to bring in as evidence, they could post this themselves in the Workshop and ask editors to comment on it. I'm strongly opposed to decisions being based on evidence that editors had no opportunity to rebut, but there's a "right" way to do this that allows arbitrators to "do their homework" and editors to have a fair chance to respond.
The reason I've focused on that one area in my statement is because I see it as the area I can add the most value and the area that most sets me apart from other candidates. The community has made clear its desire for there to be a private process for handling paid editing investigations if those investigations would lead to outing when done publicly on-wiki. It will take an arbitrator to work on the community's behalf to enact that consensus (with further community feedback, of course). As someone who's handled paid editing issues for a while now (at WP:SPI, WP:COIN, and through behind-the-scenes edit filter management), I think I have a unique understanding of the issue that would allow me to get that done.
I also spoke in my statement about how I'd like to approach cases on editor conduct (more arbitrator involvement at all stages of a case). Of course, I'm happy to answer any questions you have for me about how I'd approach cases if elected.
I would oppose any remedy directed at a non-party to a case. On the other hand, if arbitrators are active participants in a case from the beginning as I've proposed, they're more likely to identify the appropriate editors who should be included as parties. If the Committee had added those editors as parties way back when Evidence was just getting started, then perhaps that remedy would have been appropriate. It's hard to tell, since that would have affected the course of the whole case. I would never want to form an opinion on a sanction without hearing the involved editor's defense of their actions, so I won't speculate on how the case may have changed.
For Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin, I agree with the outcome. It is unacceptable for an administrator to completely ignore an arbitration proceeding related to their own accountability. Per WP:ADMINACCT, Arthur Rubin had the obligation to participate in that case and provide evidence supporting the allegations he made regarding The Rambling Man. Having said that, I think the process dragged on far too long. The case request was posted in late July, the case wasn't opened until a month later, and it didn't close until mid-October. As soon as Arthur Rubin didn't participate in Evidence, the Committee should have sent him an email asking if he intended to participate in the case at all. If he did not respond shortly after that (or responded in the negative), this case could have been cut short by a motion to desysop and close the case. The phases of a case can be quite important when facts or their interpretation are under dispute, but the only relevant fact – that an admin failed to participate in an arbitration case surrounding their own lack of accountability – was indisputable. That alone warrants desysopping, and so I have to wonder why the case dragged on a month after Evidence closed. I doubt the possibility I've raised was even discussed by the Committee, and I think current arbitrators would have been supportive of it had it been discussed.
For Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man, I agree that The Rambling Man needed to be sanctioned based on his behavior highlighted in Evidence. In particular, I agree that he has a history of incivility and failing to work constructively with others, especially with whom he disagrees. The corresponding sanction was rather terrible, though. It was never very clear whether the Committee intended to provide "AE action" support for enforcing typical WP:CIVIL violations (something that is not inherently unreasonable), whether they intended to prevent extreme civility violations only, or whether they intended to be even more restrictive than WP:CIVIL. Ambiguous or unclear remedies are unlikely to be successful even in the best of circumstances, and TRM's case was not the best of circumstances. Unclear remedies are also unfair to the sanctioned editors, who deserve a clear idea of where the "line" is on their conduct.
After the case, the Committee was slow to consider an adjustment to this remedy despite recurring issues in enforcing it. It wasn't until a recent September 2017 ARCA that the remedy was changed to something more concrete. It's certainly better than it was, and I would have supported that change. Committee members have told me in the past that ArbCom will never consider amending a case before an issue is formally brought up by a non-arbitrator at ARCA. I think this is a mistake, because it makes them slow to respond to obvious issues. Nothing in WP:ARBPOL or WP:ARBGUIDE prevents a sitting arbitrator from procedurally bringing an issue to ARCA for the Committee to consider, and that is likely the route I would have taken on this case after consulting other arbitrators. Things could have been improved far earlier.
For Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy, the big "mistake" was considering a remedy on non-parties. It's unacceptable to sanction non-parties, as it deprives them of an opportunity to respond to evidence against them. ARBPOL guarantees "a reasonable opportunity to respond to what is said about them before a decision is made" to editors when cases are private, and I see no reason why the same should be denied to editors in a public case. This would have been fixed had the Committee participated earlier on in the case, as I've advocated in my statement. They could have added the additional editors as parties if their involvement in the dispute had been caught early enough. I probably also would have pushed for Michael Hardy's remedy to be an admonishment rather than a reminder, as I think his conduct was serious enough to warrant it.
Having said that, there are many other Terms of Use issues that are far beyond the scope of the Committee. For instance, no-one on the Committee is even remotely qualified to handle child protection, which is better handled by the WMF.
I would oppose moving auditing of CheckUsers and Oversighters to being handled entirely by the Ombudsman Commission. The Ombudsman Commission has no responsibility to enforce the English Wikipedia's CheckUser policy, only the meta policy, so they are not adequate to hear all CU-related complaints. I'm supportive of a formal scope for all cases. I'd be supportive of reconsidering how we structure our cases, but I think full overlap of Evidence and Workshop isn't a good idea. Workshop proposals need to be based on the totality of evidence, not on the evidence submitted in the first few days. This would effectively reduce the time an editor has to respond to an allegation to near-zero if evidence is submitted in the last couple days. That's something I'm strongly against. Due process is important, and I don't think this proposal (as written) would preserve it. I'd much rather condense cases by reducing the time between Workshop and Proposed decision and greatly increasing arbitrator participation in Workshop. If arbs are active at the workshop, the proposed decision should evolve organically (and more transparently!) to the point we won't need to take forever drafting and discussing it after Workshop. I would never support barring non-parties from presenting evidence at a case; this serves only to reduce the amount of information available to arbitrators when making a decision, resulting in worse decisions.
The due process motion has me conflicted. Specifically, it's unclear to me whether this is removing the ability of an individual administrator to make an AE action or block. It reads like it does, and if so, I would oppose it. This would effectively remove discretionary sanctions as a useful tool to prevent disruption in difficult areas. On the other hand, I have seen a few "flash discussions" that I've found objectionable. This could possibly be reworked into something I'd support. It's worth noting that much of the due process for discretionary sanctions/arbitration enforcement comes through appeals, and I would be extremely supportive of strengthening the due process requirements surrounding appeals only.
I'm undecided on the community motion section. What is the advantage of this system versus an editor approaching an arbitrator directly with a proposed motion? Their "endorsement" would be simply posting it if they're supportive. I've done this in the past as a community member with pretty good success.
That leaves us with two areas I see the Committee as adding value at the moment: administrator conduct cases and matters involving private information. Given privacy concerns and our outing policy, matters involving private information need to be handled by a body like the Arbitration Committee. This includes overseeing the functionaries to ensure editor privacy is being treated with the appropriate respect. As for administrator conduct, the Committee is the only venue to assess whether an administrator should lose access to the tools. If the community developed an alternative community-based desysopping procedure, I'd almost certainly support it, but that's proven so difficult that I doubt it's coming in the near future. The Committee can add value there for the time being.
Since I haven't had a chance to mention this previously, I'll also give my brief thoughts on how the Committee should approach administrator conduct cases. An editor receives access to the administrator tools when the community trusts their judgement and ability to use them to improve the encyclopedia. When that trust is lost due to either significant or repeated lapses in judgement, desysopping should be on the table. This is perhaps the area where I think the "Super Mario Problem" has been most severe in recent years. If an admin consistently cannot abide by the standards we would expect of even a newer editor, they should not be an admin. If anything, the standards for everyday conduct by administrators should be higher, given their position of trust. There have been recent cases where an admin exhibited conduct that would get a new editor outright banned, but since they were an administrator, they received only minor restrictions and an admonishment that future issues may result in desysopping. That's unacceptable; at the point where a newer editor would be removed from the site entirely, desysopping is the minimum.
We expect Wikipedians-in-Residence to disclose, so I see no reason why we wouldn't expect the same of a research assistant. Given that comparison, I think they also violated the spirit/common practice of the policy. Whether this should be covered by our policy is quite a separate matter. That's for the community to figure out, not an individual administrator and certainly not the Arbitration Committee. I've argued for a more clear definition of paid editing in the past, but that's not something ArbCom can or should decide upon.
As for my bot, BU RoBOT is used to carry out tasks that can be fully automated and have community consensus to be performed. These are often very simple edits that help maintain the encyclopedia and do not need human review to be performed. This frees up human editors, myself included, to perform the more tricky business of content creation and administrative work that requires human judgement to complete. All edits from my bot have been approved through the appropriate process (WP:BRFA). You can see the full list of tasks my bot has been used for at User:BU RoBOT. Most of the tasks relate to tagging pages so WikiProjects can more easily follow their content, carrying out consensus reached at TfD discussions, and making our articles more accessible to readers with disabilities that require them to use screen readers.
To the point of your question, the current community inclusion standard is notability, which requires an article subject to have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". These sources do not have to be online, but they do have to exist. If one were to want to change this guideline, a wide-scale Requests for comment would be necessary. I don't consider a suggestion to do away with notability likely to receive any community support.