Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates/DeltaQuad

DeltaQuad

I’m Amanda (aka DQ or DeltaQuad) and I have been serving on the committee for the past two years. In that time, I’ve drafted on 5 cases, and been drafter designate on another, and held two CUOS appointment cycles. While following through with my work on the committee, I remain active in the areas I was in before Arbitration. I am also on my way to getting my first good article, Colmar-Meyenheim Air Base.

The perspective of sitting on the committee definitely changes your view. Incumbent and experienced members are becoming even more critical to the proper functioning of the committee with no topic area cases this past year, only user conduct cases. Incumbents help avoid mistakes that previous committees have made and not only provides background but an understanding of past issues for the committee, whether they are similar or a review of a past decision. With members that know this history the committee definitely has opportunities to show it can do better this year.

The committee going forward needs to collaborate more, really discuss the issues it is presented with, and come to a solid, well rounded resolution. Cases are the biggest example of this. More than just the drafting arbitrators need to be involved in earlier stages of cases. This can also be augmented by regular meetings to discuss the issues facing the committee at the time.

Arbitrators also need to be aware and conscious of omnibusing and case scope issues. This year we have had cases that should have been declined or had a corrected scope to correctly address the underlying issues. Yet they continued as is in the interest of time or resolving the issue at hand, which in the end hurts the case parties and related topic areas.

With my continual willingness to learn and adapt, retaining knowledge of past committees, and always remaining a community voice when it comes to votes, I ask you to elect me again for the 2017-18 committee.

Disclosures: A list of my accounts and I already and will continue to comply with the WMF Identification Policy.

Arbitration Committee Election 2016 candidate: DeltaQuad

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Questions from Collect

Should the existence of a "case" imply that the committee should inevitably impose "sanctions"?
The existence of a case should never imply sanctions. It's exactly what happened with the Michael hardy case at the end of the day, no sanctions were ever imposed. The best way to handle situations ("case"s, if you will) is to resolve the issues at hand with the minimal amount of sanctions that still allow a group of users to edit, fall down and build themselves back up to be better editors. It allows growth individually as editors and as an encyclopedia as a whole.
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?
Yes, the administrator is then no longer impartial and is considered involved. The administrator think they can be impartial, but it can still cause underlying unilaterality to occur with the editor. Several times over the past two years, the Arbitration Committee has highlighted that there are many administrators around to deal with any given situation. Therefore, even if the administrator thinks they are the only editor in the area, it does not give them a green light to act partisan and unilaterally.
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?
There is actually a case where I voted on something similar to this. Arbitrators understand that there are sometimes inevitable delays to someones access to Wikipedia, and I would provide reasonable opportunity for them to do so. That said, if there is reason to believe that someone is making up excuses (not saying that was the case with my vote), then Arbitrators should give thought to such attempts to disrupt proceedings and the best interest of the encyclopedia.
Where multiple editors present evidence against such a person, should that person be afforded additional space for rebuttal?
Where editors are accused of something, they should be allowed a decent amount of space to respond. There are definitely exemptions to that though, such as evidence that is removed as out of scope, or someone defending each of 50 diffs which arbitrators can use common sense to process. This is all assuming that "such a person" is meant to have the meaning of "a person".
Where evidence is added at the last minute, should the clock be stopped to allow actual time to rebut the last-minute evidence?
Courtesy has been extended to allow a single rebuttal per person before, but I would also encourage people to provide analysis of evidences on the workshop page if that would sufficiently allow for what they need to post.
Under what circumstance, if any, should arbitrators be allowed to present evidence in the proposed decision which was not previously presented by anyone else?
So there are two different types of evidence I want to differentiate from in this case, pre-case conduct and conduct during a case. Conduct that occurs during a case is absolutely fair game, especially after evidence closure, as the committee retains full jurisdiction over it's proceedings. As for pre-case conduct, if an Arbitrator is reasonably connecting their evidence with evidence already provided (ie. someone links to a diff in a discussion, and the Arbitrator links another diff from that discussion) that is also fair game. If it's through digging of their own, then I would expect them to submit it during the evidence phase as a recused arbitrator.

Thank you. Collect (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Joshualouie711

On your user page, you state that you have Borderline personality disorder, or BPD. The relevant Wikipedia page states that BDP is "characterized by unstable relationships with other people, unstable sense of self, and unstable emotions." As Worm That Turned has stated on your previous run for Arbitrator, "Comments you make will be taken out of context, your motives and abilities will be insulted, [and] you may be threatened or harassed." How do you expect BPD to affect your decision-making capability should you be re-elected as Arbitrator?
I expect it to affect my decision making abilities just as much as it did this past term. To quantify that, it didn't. My personality, who I am, and how I act is not defined by my disorder, nor is any mental health challenge the same from person to person. The article you link to also leaves out a very important aspect, those who are high functioning with their BPD. In a nutshell it means I can interact and integrate better in society with fewer problems than those with low-functioning BPD.

Question from Biblioworm

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.)
"Functionary issues" is a very broad term. While, yes, I am in support of removing matters in general away from ArbCom, specifics may warrant a different answer. If your speaking of all functionary issues, including appointments, I disagree. Any auditing function removed from arbcom would ultimately come back up to us as a heavily involved dispute the community would not be able to resolve, or if the community does become involved again, then we'll have issues like the 2010 CU/OS elections where only 1/12 applicants were appointed, and eventually we'd regain the issue RfA is having by not having enough (active) functionaries. If we are talking about breaking it into a group instead...possibly...that's a very large rabbit hole to dive down on an RfC level.
As for issues that are perhaps too sensitive and too large of an issue for ArbCom, especially where we don't have the resources to handle the issue. I absolutely support removing that, and I dare say the majority of the current committee wants that gone too. Ultimately issues such as legal issues, privacy matters, conflict of interest investigations, pedophilia advocacy, off-wiki harassment (including but not limited to stalker blogs, hosted domains to harass a user, interference with life or work) are all legal responsibilities of the WMF as they host the site. We do not have the proper training, the proper professional contacts or access to them, nor are we elected to deal with it. To put it lightly we'd do a crappy job on a very sensitive issue. When they don't enforce or deal with an issue as such, it falls to the next person in the hierarchy, ArbCom.
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.
I agree that ArbCom should clearly state a case scope at the beginning of a case, and explain it in detail. Putting that in a form of questions is definitely an interesting idea, and not one I had considered. The problem I see with limiting ArbCom to those issues dissenting opinions is not all Arbitrators can comment within maybe the first two days of case, so we risk a further delay in the case from an affirmative scope. From there, if an Arb wishes to raise an issue, especially one the community validly raises, they are stuck and forced into that option. Ideally of course, ArbCom wouldn't need to change scope late in the game, but it's still needed as an option.
Streamline ArbCom case 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).
ArbCom isn't a courtroom, though. While the community has struggled with the issue at hand, they are most often more educated on the matter than Arbitrators would be. Therefore their input, especially outside reasonable views, are helpful in deliberations, and may even help users headed toward sanctions see light. That said, Arbitators are (most of the time) not career lawyers and don't write the best or clearest decisions. Community involvement, especially former Arbitrator involvement can be specifically of aid to the committee.
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.
I have definitely seen examples where ArbCom has been to hasty to go with sanctions (as some would say "throw the book") at parties. Anything other than the banhammer at the end of the day is preferable and should be strived for. The TRM case was a clear example of something that overstretched what needed to be done. That said, there are limited cases where the hammer is in fact needed.
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.
I support this. Admins can block under standard block reasons if the disruption is heavy enough that it can not wait for an AE block, or if an AE contributors conduct crosses the line.
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.
I'm open to the idea. My concern would revolve around the implementation. Perennial proposals, or multiple versions with a couple words changed of a proposal, or motions like "ArbCom should unelect itself" are what I would hope to avoid. Honestly, this does not need to turn into another area where people can polarize their issues further, and I feel that several motions would be proposed for bans through this method. So it absolutely would need a filter just beyond an Arb endorsing it.

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. 21:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Format redone for ease of answer. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Rschen7754

During the years of 2015 and 2016, your activity decreased substantially; for 9 months of your term, you made less than 50 edits a month. If reelected, do you believe that you will be able to remain active as an arbitrator, while still remaining well-grounded in the community? --Rs chen 7754 06:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I do think that an activity chart can be an indicator of general activity, it's a poor measure for someone's actual contribution to a project. I compiled a brief table to include my admin, CU, and OS actions for the months you speak of. Only 3 of those listed months do I drop below 100 edits/actions. This does not of course include non-arb emails, keeping up by reading what's going on in the community, UTRS Development, the occasional assistance with ACC as a project, bot fixing and building, OTRS diversions, IRC, and other wikis to list a few. My point comes down to if I'm not here making an edit somewhere, the majority of the time i'm still around the community answering questions, helping out.

Question from Ajraddatz

Hey DeltaQuad, thanks for standing for re-election. I really appreciate your willingness to work with other projects and people in cases with cross-wiki implications, and hope that other arbitrators follow your example! From my own outside perspective, I think that ArbCom has a bit of a bureaucracy problem, with a very formalistic and structured way of doing business that runs contrary to most other wiki-institutions. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it can be quite strange sometimes, such as when the Committee mandated an additional protection level which has now been co-opted by the community. Or the recently-proposed modification to the procedure for removing advanced permissions, which many have criticized for being too bureaucratic and long. Do you think that this is a problem overall, and what could be done to prevent it in the future? -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom, without a doubt, has bureaucratic processes to it. Sometimes that work for the better, sometimes that just screw things up. 500/30 protection came from a community driven platform, and honestly, Arbitrators were shocked to learn of it's implementation and had no clue that there was even a proposal. Had I known, I would have stopped by and encouraged the community not to follow through with implementing it. Just because ArbCom thinks something is a good idea, does not mean it is. I still oppose the general idea of arbitration 500/30. My opinions on the removal of advanced permissions including my oppose are there, so i'm not going to split the discussion to answer this question, as the motion is still active. I don't think bureaucracy in general is what we are trying to prevent here at all, as process is definitely needed at times. That said, we are running up against complication vs. simplicity. The default desire when someone asks about something, requests clarification, or has a heavy dispute with someone we try and make it even clearer by explaining it. The more we explain things excessively, the more like mud things become. Why not just try to simplify it? I think encouraging remedies, decisions, motions, and more like that can help us to get past the complicated bureaucracy we create. For now, I will continue to oppose excessive over complications to issues, and strive to keep it as simple as possible with the best protection and least collateral for the encyclopedia.

Question from Mark Arsten

Hi Amanda, 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?
Seeing multiple administrator accounts being comprised is definitely concerning. Any account being compromised is concerning. I've seen stewards, checkusers, and the WMF working around the clock to resolve the issues. The simple fact about this is people need strong passwords and minimize the attempts at engineering to break into their account. That said, ArbCom does not create, modify or invalidate policy. I trust that the community working in hand with the Foundation could come up with an appropriate policy as they see fit. As for my email and Wikipedia accounts, yes, they are secure. 2FA was enabled on my email a long time ago, I have it on my account onwiki now that it's available, and continue to recommend it for anyone who has privileged access.

Questions from Carrite

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?
This is a very political question, whether it's meant to be or not. All this years cases were user conduct cases, so if I point to anything there, it's more my opinion on whether or not I felt my fellow Arbitrators voted in the right direction or not, and I don't think splitting the committee and the committee-elect on these views is the most collaborative way to go. One thing we did struggle with this year was ARCA. Requests sat there for a lot longer than I would have liked, and I was part of the problem. This year I started to work on getting the committee together for verbal meetings which keeps everyone on track, hears all viewpoints, and prioritizes business that needs to be handled and get done. One of my main drives this next year to improve the committee workflow for the benefit of each Wikipedian. This only helps the situation.
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've definitely seen a lot worse sites out there such as stalker blogs, outing websites, and a lot worse i'm not going to mention here. I do read Wikipediocracy along with some other off-site venues on occasions, more so when required by ArbWork. I have no objection to off-wiki criticism sites in general, if that is their sole scope. It sometimes makes someone think harder about their opinions on something. WPO is not something I regularly subscribe to though as debates often become pot shots at another person that pissed them off. Once people get into doxing other Wikipedia editors or making harassing statements (often repeated) about them, I oppose that completely. Sites like WPO can be a positive tool...but how often that actually occurs I'd tie to the level and amount of crap in any given thread.

Questions from ThePlatypusofDoom

Hello, and thanks for running. What changes do you want to bring to ArbCom? What do you think is the biggest problem with ArbCom right now? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to your questions are directly in my nomination statement, and the other is a duplicate of Carrite's question above. Please look at those respectively. I'd be more than happy to answer follow up questions you may have.

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 ;)

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?
It worries me a little that we have not seen any content area disputes come to the committee this year. Yes, ARCA is where a lot of the already existing areas are at, and that's something that needs to be focused on. But there are always disputes, heavy disputes that don't come to ArbCom. I expect to see ITN/DYK hit our door step eventually. The committee with the extra time at the moment should be taking the time to dive into the community to assist with dispute resolution before things need to get to a level of Arbitration. This could mean helping ANI, but we don't want 15 Arbs flowing into ANI, so finding your own area to help would be the best way. ARCA can be efficient once again, it just purely needs the collaboration of the Arbitrators. I want to add that while emails are down from it's peak, they are still heavy in numbers in my view, a fair amount of them being either unblock requests or people wish for Arbitration because they don't like how their article is written. Also, there may be lest interest in community members joining arbcom, and less questions this year, but considering the mass message sending there will likely still be a significant amount of votes.
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 most satisfying part of the Committee's work is when we are able to assist people in resolving those disputes or issues, and they come to understand each other's views. That could be at any venue ArbCom has, so it's not one specific area. I sure hope that it only increases going into 2017

Questions from kcowolf

You were one of the drafting arbitrators on the Michael Hardy case. As part of the proposed decision of the case, it was proposed that four editors who were not parties to the case be placed on probation for 1 month. You originally supported the remedy but later switched to oppose "by request of the community". There were concerns noted on the talk page that those who were possibly going to be sanctioned had not been given notice or an opportunity to present evidence in their defense before the proposed decision was posted, and there was disagreement in the arbitrators' votes as to whether sanctioning a non-party in a case remedy was proper. Looking back on it, do you have any thoughts on whether the remedy and the process by which it was proposed were proper?
Simple answer, no. The affected people did not have the time to present evidence on the matter, nor did they know they were being considered, and throwing something on at the end was a mistake. It has likely had the effect of worrying users about bringing cases to ArbCom in the future. I apologize for that error, and without a doubt, it's ingrained in me that I might be part of the cause on why ArbCom won't get as many cases in the future. It's one that I will not repeat. At the very least I can also prevent future Arbitrators from proposing such remedies out of turn.
Soft ping @Kcowolf:

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?
"sufficently secure and private" is a very vague term. It's definitely not secure in the sense of someone could do a number of things (anything from MIM to Social Engineering) to gain access to that email. That's why ArbCom has a disclaimer about communications.

If we were to implement something such as PGP encryption, this would be problem for several reasons.
1) Encryption with endpoint users: Some arb will hit the wrong button, encrypt the message to the end user that doesn't use PGP, and they are confused
2) Many arbs use webmail: With webmail, you have to trust someone else's extension, which when it comes to security, I don't unless someone I trust has taken an indepth look at it
3) Future ArbComs: Future Arbitration Committees will simply be unable to review the content, as encryption is end-user, or if there is a way to create a group one, a new one has to be uploaded every year plus resignations, and redistributed
4) No mobile mail: A lot of Arbs stay up with email using a mobile device. Forcing encryption removes that ability and further slows response
5) Hard to setup: PGP is not an easy thing to set up. It's a very detailed process. Several arbs would need a walk through tutorial one-on-one to accomplish this. That and it's needed to be explained to new arbs every year.
And i'm sure more reasons would come up...

I do think it's a good idea to have, but a horrible idea for the committee to adopt an internal policy on. That said, I'd be willing to receive a PGP encrypted message to pass onto other Arbs via Arbwiki or something.

Question from The Rambling Man

Your contribution history (this year alone) shows you barely participate in the addition of quality content to the encyclopedia. How can we trust that you understand the machinations of the debates around the policies and behaviours of those who actively contribute to the quality content of the project?
I will never understand a topic area about any specific surgical procedure or more likely in your case, a complex mathematical formula. There will always be topic areas that Arbitrators never fully understand. That said, machinations are fundamentally the same, it's just different subjects that they occur on. I also have aspects of my daily life now, that deal with people targeting each other and trying to gain the upper hand daily. My track record (if you go in and look at proposed decisions) through 2015 content cases, shows exactly that like the Wifione case.
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?
I think my track record speaks clearly as I declined the Fram ARC which would have easily turned into that, and I also opposed the acceptance of your case as is.

Questions from Antony-22

In general, does enforcing civility harm free speech? Does it help it? What is the line between incivility and harassment?
[1]. Incivility is when your having a conversation and add a few words that aren't completely clean to make your point. Harassment is going out of your way to make someone feel uncomfortable, especially multiple times.
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?
^{[citation needed]}. I hate to try and state the obvious here, but maybe through collaboration and consensus? Last I heard (and know from being on ArbCom and getting the endless businesses and/or profressionals wanting Arbitration over their page, plus what I see in OTRS) business will either go out of their way to try and follow our rules, even after being blocked, or just cut their losses and send (extremely) uncivil emails.
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?
If we are at that point, I'd have to ask the question, "Why are we here?"....To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve;
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?
Absolutely not. Wait...you mean after all these years no one has at least written an essay with all the timesinks we have on WP?

Question from BU Rob13

There's recently been some discussion about the changing case load of ArbCom. What are your thoughts on how ArbCom should begin to operate as most of the problematic topic areas have already been "handled" in past cases? Would you push for a move away from the time-consuming cases to more motions, amendments, and clarifications? Perhaps more succinctly, do you see ArbCom as entering more of a "maintenance phase"?
We can't be entering "maintenance phase". Maintenance is routine work that is keeping up a system in it's normal state. ArbCom has to adapt to it's changing environment, so we are now moving into a growth phase. This is the time for the committee to (try) and restore it's faith in part with the community. Outreach is a key way to do this where individual Arbs are working from within the community, and not just dealing with disputes put at it's door step. It shows we are genuinely interested in assisting with dispute resolution and improve the encyclopedia.

There should be no particular push to have issues with ArbCom resolved in one format. Each has it's own reason on why it exists. There are topic areas out there that still have not come to ArbCom, but will one day, so to try and push that into a motion or work it into a previous case scope, could be disastrous. What should be done is the community and ArbCom need to collaborate to improve existing processes to best serve the community while this downtime exists.

Question from Sarah777

According to your details on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2016/Candidates/Guide you have four blocked accounts! What's that all about?? Sarah777 (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked them specifically for security reasons, so the could not be compromised and used as they are my old usernames.

Question from Banedon

What would your ideal TRM / interactions at DYK or ITN case have looked like (including scope, results, etc)? Banedon (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is completely unfair for me to rehash a closed case, whether that be to the community, the parties, or to my colleagues. It's how drama starts, as it's not something we can fix at this point in time. It's good to have the philosophical discussions about what we do with certain parts of cases, as it brings better ideas forward for future Arbitration cases. At the same time though, people don't have a chance to respond to what I am saying and your asking me to vote on behalf of my Arbitrators. It's completely inappropriate to do so.

Question from User:Doc James

What is your position on undisclosed paid editing and what do you see as arbcom's role in enforcement of the WP:TOU?
My position hasn't changed much since the Wifione case. The only change I would make to that would be changing the first sentence to say that undisclosed paid editing is prohibited by the WMF and is not local policy.

What is currently written as policy on WP:PAID is a mashup of the Conflict of Interest policy and the WMF Terms of use. The page was only marked a policy page after a bold edit by a user. There was no formal RfC to prohibit or change the paid editing policy on the English Wikipedia. While I am aware that input was requested by the WMF for the modification of the terms of use, it was not implemented as a global policy. Furthermore, that represented all global editors and had many contributors that are not local to the English Wikipedia.

Looking at the actual paid editing terms in the terms of use, a Wikimedia project may individually adopt a policy that overrides the terms of use, and is to be listed at m:Alternative paid contribution disclosure policies. English Wikipedia doesn't have one. Looking further into enforcement provisions, the Terms of Use allows, but does not mandate any enforcement of this policy, leaving it up to the individual project to decide if they wish to handle it.

All that said, there are RfCs that have been conducted surrounding paid editing that have all failed to obtain any consensus on the issue. For those who are concerned that paid editors are going to have a negative effect on Wikipedia, the previous ArbCom decision on the matter outlines clearly how we already have the tools to manage it. "The Committee does have, however, a longstanding mandate to deal with activities often associated with paid editing—POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, and sometimes sockpuppetry—through the application of existing policy." [Wifione case]

It's the WMF's responsibility to enforce the terms of use, as it is their policy. As noted in other questions, ArbCom has limited resources or legal defense in this area also, and therefore would put committee members at more legal risk for taking up this issue.

Questions from George Ho

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?
It may or may not affect the overall case. It's very circumstantial, especially if the editor is a main party to the case or not. It's really their main place to provide a defense to anything that has been said against them, and their chance to present issues that they are faced with in the scope of the case. I don't like to see parties not provide a defense, but I see that as their right, which I fully respect.
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?