Mkdw

I never imagined I would ever put myself up as a candidate for ArbCom.

For those of you who do not know me, which I expect to be almost everyone, I am Mkdw. I have been editing Wikipedia since 2006; just over ten years. Saying that sounds even more strange to me than the notion of being an ArbCom candidate. I have been an administrator since 2013 and have access to the OTRS and UTRS. I spend the majority of my time doing small background tasks such as working at SPI, AFD, and AIV in addition to OTRS and UTRS. Lately I've spent a lot of my time investigating SPI cases where COI and PAID are contributing factors. I also make myself available on IRC in the en-help channel.

In terms of article writing, I do a lot less of it than I would like. I have contributed in a major way to three FAs, four GAs, and eight DYKs. A lot of these contributions were apart of the Gender Gap Task Force, Art+Feminism, and Wikipedia Asian Month (as part of Women in Red/ Asian Women Month). I became interested in pro-feminism through my work in international transracial adoption. At the time it was also a controversial topic here on the English Wikipedia and I wanted to volunteer my time to expanding the content in those areas.

In my work, I am frequently required to thoroughly review sensitive and confidential information in sometimes complex and lengthy processes. I fully understand the importance in objectively reviewing cases and making decisions even if they are in conflict with my own personal and moral convictions. I feel that I have a stable work-life and personal-wikipedia balance. While I am not as prolific an editor as other candidates in the past (and hopefully more candidates forthcoming), I do think that this aspect may help me avoid ArbCom burn out. So if appointed, I would strive to bring a calm and patient presence to the table.

As a note, I am currently travelling which I do so frequently on business. This trip is quite a long one and I will be back on 17 December 2016. I will have access to the Internet and plan to check Wikipedia regularly but there will be periods of time where I will not be able to respond as quickly. I meet the eligibility criteria; I will fully comply with the criteria for access to non-public data; and my alternate accounts are User:Mkdw Bot and User:Mkdw VF. (Please note User:Mkdwyer99 is not associated with me)

Extended statement and concerns about the low number of candidates (at the time of this statement).

• Mkdw ( talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)

v t e Arbitration Committee Election 2016 candidate: Mkdw Candidate statement Questions for the candidate Discuss this candidate

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Question from Rschen7754

2. Your candidacy in WP:CUOS2016 was not successful. Do you believe that this has any effect on your candidacy or your ability to be an arbitrator? Rs chen 7754 19:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC) For what it's worth, I ran for steward in a similar circumstance and was successful, so I do not see this as an automatic disqualifier). reply

   I knew going into CUOS2016 that they were specifically looking for oversighters " available to handle oversight requests between 03:00 and 12:00 UTC". I disclosed early on to the functionaries that my typical editing hours only partially coincide with that time range. Admittedly, I was concerned about the optics of being an unsuccessful candidate. In particular because no one had opposed my candidacy publicly and I was worried there may have been a private concern brought up. I wrote to Opabinia regalis and requested a feedback summary and asked her if I could post it publicly if it ever came up. Here is the feedback summary I received:
   
   "As suggested by some of the public comments by functionaries when we announced this round, the need for new oversighters, especially in well-staffed time zones, was not acute this year, so some members of the committee felt it best to be conservative bringing new people on board as oversighters. However, everyone felt positive about your admin work - and specifically, there were no concerns raised related to the SPI clerk training you described in your questionnaire - and you'd be encouraged to apply again in a future round."
   
   So with that in mind, especially with the note about being encouraged to apply again in the future, I felt I could put myself forward without restraint for other things. Opabinia regalis did bring up a good point that unlike RFA where new admins are almost always needed, functionary appointments are more driven by need. ArbCom elections came along and I felt I could proceed with no affect on my ability to be a candidate or an arbitrator.

Questions from Collect

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

   No. I see sanctions as being the absolute last attempt at a solution. While ArbCom is a last resort step in dispute resolution, sanctions are the last resort measure in the arbitration process. ArbCom cases can be long and complex. A lot can happen between the time the case is initiated to the time arbitrators are expected to vote on proposals. Everything should be decided on a case-by-case basis and sanctions imposed only if there are no other real options available. I'm in favour of the least amount of intervention as I believe the community will always be the most important and central aspect of Wikipedia, including its governance. It is with the community that all the most important decisions should be made and enacted upon. ArbCom should only be there to resolve parts of a dispute that are at an impasse to allow the community to move forward and resolve the issue as a whole.

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?

   WP:INVOLVED is one of our most important policies when it comes to administrative conduct. Again, I believe context is important. Every interaction builds a history between two editors. If the comment was initially made during an editorial dispute or situation where no administrative action was taken (including warnings), then I would take that into consideration when evaluating the history between these two individuals. On the other hand, if the comment was initially made as part of an administrative action or warning such as a reprimand against an editor for socking or creating attack pages, then I would be less likely to question whether the administrator could make a fair and impartial decision. No matter what, there is the potential for an administrator to have too much history with another editor even when it has only been administrative in nature. I have yet to see a situation that must be resolved by a single administrator. This is why I often seek a second opinion or will not decline a third unblock request even if they're identical in nature. There is enough redundancy in the system where this issue should not be as common of a problem as it is now.

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) As someone who travels frequently, in fact I'm travelling right now, I would be willing to postpone the case if the individual was outside of their point of origin. The tolerance for delays would be finite especially in a situation whereby multiple editors are involved and the problems continue to persist and disrupt the project even with the absence of the individual who is away. I would also limit or end the postponement if it was seemingly being done to intentionally draw out or delay the process.
   
   B) Yes, I believe everyone should have the opportunity to defend themselves. Additional space should be able to be afforded on a case-by-case basis to ensure its not being abused.
   
   C) At some point in time the process does need to end otherwise cases could potentially last forever. I would be open to the notion with restrictions and based upon the implications and importance of the new evidence brought forth. In very least, I'd be willing to allow a short comment or statement before proceeding.
   
   D) On this one I am conflicted. I absolutely believe that arbitrators should investigate and review a case beyond the evidence presented. Anything they do find they should be openly disclose to the case unless it would breach privacy. That being said, I would not want for this to distract them from their ultimate roles as arbitrators by suddenly becoming the driving force behind prosecuting someone. In that regard I would want to see some restraint. I don't believe this is anything like a courtroom but there is a practical reason in any form of dispute resolution to ensure there is a separation between the arbitrators and the other involved parties.

Thank you. Collect ( talk) 12:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Question from Biblioworm

2. Consider the following ideas for reforming ArbCom:

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

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

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

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

   Thank you. Biblio ( talk) Reform project. 21:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC) reply
   
   

   A) I would feel very uncomfortable about ArbCom making any decisions that had legal implications or consequences. This is absolutely where the WMF legal department should come into the picture. I am not in favour of the WMF having too much involvement in community 'governance' on a day-to-day level but I do think they can better support the community by providing guidance, resources, access to advisors, and other means to help the community handle difficult situations. Invariable there will be times where the problem is beyond the scope and means of ArbCom and I would like to see those cases dealt with by the WMF but with more transparency when possible. In the not-for-profit sector and tech industry, harassment and privacy matters are often handled by inexperienced or unqualified professionals. In many cases they are handled by the communications (or more ideally an HR) department, but frequently their mandate is the protection of the organization and its interests against exposure and liability rather than the care and protection of the individual. I think this is not just an issue for ArbCom but the community as a whole to petition the WMF that this issue is a priority and more should be allocated towards it.
   
   B1) I've never sat on ArbCom so it is difficult for me to say whether this change would be possible or not. I think it would be very challenging to even identify all the issues until well into a case. I would not want to see a solution be excluded because it was not identified and included in the restrictions placed at the beginning of a case. If we're going to emphasize allowing editors a chance to fairly defend themselves, then we need to keep an open mind about the case and allow for any number of outcomes. I certainly agree that structure is important and more can be done to keep cases on track and within better guidelines.
   
   B2) ArbCom cases have become an increasingly popular venue to attack other editors and soapbox beyond the scope of the case. I absolutely agree things need to be done to reduce and discourage that type of engagement/behaviour. I'm not exactly sure how that can be done; whether it is done through clerking or allowing those discussions to occur on subpages. I don't know if I would liken this problem with ArbCom to the legal judicial system because even in courtroom hearings the process sometimes still allows testimonial from character witnesses, expert witnesses, eye-witnesses, victim impact statements, along with presentation of the evidence. Likewise there is cross-examination and presentation of evidence by the defense with all the same measures. Additionally, judges and grand juries have very clear instructions and work within highly restrictive legal codes to guide them through the process. Additionally, courtroom proceedings are scaled down to a prosecution/plaintiff and the defense. ArbCom cases often handle multiple individuals representing multiple points of view and all seeking different outcomes. ArbCom is a dispute resolution mechanism that has the power to enforce already existing measures but to also create new sanctions (the equivalent of creating new laws).
   
   C) As discussed above, if ArbCom is the last resort measure to dispute resolution; sanctions are the last resort measure in an ArbCom case; then for me, sitebans are the absolute last called upon resolution in a case. I have very little interest in seeing well meaning editors who are clearly here to improve the encyclopedia be shown the door over a surmountable problem.
   
   D) I have no issue in allowing AE requests to remain open for a period of time. In fact, I think AE reform could use some work. I would be concerned about the damage that could be done while waiting for the AE request to be handled. I would want to see supplementary provisions introduced that allow admins to issue temporary preventative measures, if the situation requires it, until the AE request is closed. At some point we also need to trust our admins. I would like to see a balance between time and efficiency.
   
   E) I'm open to allowing motions to be submitted by the community. I could see the process becoming easily overwhelmed but something like a petition process being implemented where the ones that surpass a certain criteria are moved forward as motions could be very appealing. I've always viewed ArbCom as serving at the request of the community and there should always be a process in place to allow the community a voice.

Question from Mark Arsten

2. Hi Mkdw, 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?

   It seemed very chaotic to me. As BWolff (WMF) stated, they're still investigating the matter and we're all shortly expecting a report from the WMF with more details. At the moment, we know very little other than the fact that it doesn't appear to be a brute force attack nor backdoor access to the WMF servers and, in at least one instance, the password was unique to Wikipedia. I was admittedly surprised that 2FA was implemented so quickly after the incident. I can only assume it was something already being worked on and simply rolled out a bit sooner than to be expected. In any case, I think the community responded quickly to minimize the damage and I'm sure this situation will lead to further steps that improve account security. I think the WMF did exactly what it needed to do by taking the matter seriously and giving us the tools to start improving our security situation. I absolutely believe policy changes need to be implemented to ensure these measures are actually used. Account security is only as effective as its end user. Ideally, I'd want the adoption of increased password complexity requirements, and for all users to use SHA-1 committed identities, 2FA, and scratch codes. I'm not sure if this pain-point would be worthwhile for all editors. I do not think it would be a stretch to make these measures compulsory for admins, bureaucrats, and other functionaries. As BWolff (WMF) said, there would need to be community consultation but I would hope that they/we would be willing to take on a bit more inconvenience to mitigate the potential damage that can be caused by our tools when in the wrong hands.
   
   [Edit: I've been thinking about this answer a bit more now that we have some more information. We still don't know the full extent of the situation or how many accounts have or will be compromised. I'm not overly familiar with how the other advanced permissions work, but if they're anything similar to the UTRS and OTRS, then I do think we are exposed by not requiring our advanced permission holders to increase their security measures. If an unauthorized person were able to access the ArbCom wiki or a CU account, I could see some highly confidential information being accessed, where if there were a malicious intent, could ultimately have lasting and real world consequences for individuals. Even an undetected admin account deleting new pages that do not qualify for CSD could take months or even years to detect. I think we were lucky that in this particular situation the compromised accounts were used not in a seemingly "truly malicious way".]
   
   As for my own account security, I have a dedicated Wikipedia email account that uses a unique password and 2FA. My Wikipedia password was previously also unique among my passwords and I have my SHA-1 committed identity listed on my about page. Once the incident occurred, I immediately changed both my passwords, implemented 2FA on my Wikipedia account, and recorded my scratch codes in analog form. I don't think anyone can be entirely confident about their account security. I can only hope that's enough for the time being.

Questions from Carrite

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

   I spent an hour today reading through all the cases in 2016. I was a little surprised to see that the Michael Hardy case was not listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2016. ArbCom had been very strategic in the few cases they had chosen to take on and so I think the Michael Hardy case was a departure from their previous track record. I understand what they were trying to accomplish but the divisiveness within the committee proved just how controversial this case ended up being for them. One request I would have going forward for the committee would be to ensure redundancy and the participation of multiple arbitrators when introducing and overseeing reforms. As for grading the committee members, I will decline because I don't feel confident I have enough insight to accurately assess their work. I think there are likely huge portions of their work I am not aware about that if I were would drastically alter my final assessment. I am also taking into consideration that some of them are among the other candidates and I don't feel it would be appropriate to use this opportunity to express my criticisms of them.

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?

   On rare occasion I have read Wikipediocracy. Usually it has been because an article or post has been referenced either on-wiki or in the media. I'm personally fine with the site. I think criticism is an important process and any venue that provides for discussion will inevitably lead to both positive and negative uses.

Questions from BU Rob13

2. Sorry for the last minute question. You mentioned your experience in COI/paid editing in the context of SPI within your statement. What do you see as the Arbitration Committee's role in COI/paid editing issues?

   As we know, ArbCom does not decide matters of editorial or site policy. In that regard, they have no role other than to accept certain cases and to arbitrate specific issues. However, ArbCom should be offering more support to editors at COIN and SPI who are investigating black hat editing. These investigations frequently involve evidence privately submitted via OTRS, IRC, email, and/or CU. It can be extremely difficult building a case without running into OUTING or other privacy issues. This can become even more complicated when seeking a site ban or TNT for all the articles which may require a community consensus. ArbCom and functionaries can assist in investigating these elaborate networks and if required, take measures and steps against them. An example that many will be familiar with is the Orangemoody case. Even the WMF legal department became involved. That case is still being cleaned up and there is still an OTRS queue just for it (albeit finally starting to see less activity).
   
   A more recent case I was involved in was Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sunilseth15 which led to a site ban and nuke of all their articles. In that instance I was able to build a relatively straight forward case and the CUs were very helpful. It took a lot of time assessing and tying together all the behavioural evidence to demonstrate that it was more than just a standard socking case. Even in the ANI, an email was brought forward that perhaps shouldn't have been disclosed on the board. And then there's the aftermath. Often the biggest problems come following the seeming conclusion the investigation: determining what to do with the articles when others have substantially contributed to them; handling unblock requests from the meat puppets; and managing all the inquiries, both on and off wiki, from companies or individuals that had privately paid to have their article created that have since been deleted. Frequently these inquiries are posted to the article talk page and reveal confidential information about the parties involved. It can be particularly challenging to navigate this process when the case or evidence is not as straightforward. In some of these occasions, I would want to see the matters investigated by the committee or functionaries at the request of the community. In addition to more support, I think there are also some needed reforms in a few places like SPI and OTRS that can be facilitated to make things better for the functionaries and clerks as well as the editors who volunteer their time there. Community consultation being key to any reform process.

Questions from Opabinia

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

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

   There's a difference between being irrelevant and being less frequently useful. If there are less house fires I don't want the fire department to disappear altogether. That being said, I don't believe the institution of ArbCom should be preserved for the sake of being preserved. The community may eventually decide that ArbCom needs reform to adjust for the times such as reducing the number of arbitrators appointed or unifying the election cycle to reduce election fatigue for the community. In any eventuality, the committee is elected to serve at the request of the community. If community determines that mandate to be big, small, or not at all, then that's what the committee should do.
   
   In regards to ARCA, I would like to see two things occur: More participation from the current arbitrators. A formalized process to request comments from the arbitrators that were around when the case or sanction was brought forward. One thing I have seen frequently commented on is the lack of institutional memory from committee to committee. An ARCA case likely takes quite a bit of time for current arbitrators to review. I imagine there is some trepidation to make any sort of comment because even something like the changing climate of the community has changed the original intention and potential impact of the decision. At least with some input, even if only a little bit, from former arbitrators, the current committee could make a more confident comment or decision.
   
   As for ANI, I don't think the system is perfect but I also don't think it's a hopelessly lost cause either. ANI could use more participation and more structure but that's something for the community to enact and decide. It's important to remember that arbitrators are still regular editors outside of the scope of ArbCom. I certainly intend to continue working at SPI and writing articles. Arbitrators working at ANI and other venues will always be a complimentary presence to the process.

4. What aspects of the committee's work do you expect to find most (or least) satisfying?

   I would like to hope that the same satisfactions I get from gnomishly contributing behind the scenes as an admin and editor will also still be true if appointed to the committee. I've chosen to volunteer for over ten years on the English Wikipedia and it is because I believe in the project. Even my smallest of edits contributes to the endurance and growth of a free encyclopedia. I expect the least satisfying aspect of being on the committee will be seeing some the worst parts about the project. It will not be possible in all cases to find a resolution that satisfies everyone; that is the nature of conflict and sometimes an unfortunate consequence that must occur in order for things to move forward.

6. A similar question was asked by Worm That Turned last year, and I think it's a good one for those new to the committee. There's a long history of arbitrators being targeted by trolls and harassers, sometimes escalating to the point of outing, off-site abuse, and even interfering with arbitrators' real lives. Are you prepared for these possibilities?

   I don't think it's possible to ever be fully prepared but I acknowledge the risks.

Question from *thing goes

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

--18:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

1. I don't believe a socially optimal solution would include the use of encryption in regards to email communication. Anything connected to a network is susceptible to being compromised.
   
   The complexity required to implement and train end users on encryption protocols on a case-by-case basis would severely disrupt the process. In some cases, it will exceed the technical understanding of some individuals on the general public side. The gains in doing so would be a minimal increase in protection and it's likely we'd expose end users and ArbCom to a myriad of other problems. We have a much greater risk of someone defeating our current security measures that protect login access to email and project spaces (something encryption wouldn't prevent). As I mentioned above, I think advanced permission holders should be required to increase their security protocols: increased password complexity requirements, SHA-1 committed identities, 2FA, and scratch codes. On top of that I'm sure we can review and evaluate our current manuals to refine current best practices to reduce the likelihood of human error.

Question from The Rambling Man

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

   I would certainly take that dynamic into serious consideration when evaluating my position on the matter but I would not refuse a case on those grounds alone. Every case and circumstance would need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis but it's no secret that I'm an outspoken proponent against attempts to canvass and game the system. In regards to hostile testimony against an individual, its inclusion is important but must recognized for what it is and where it comes from. Fortunately, ArbCom cases are not done in a court of public opinion and arbitrators do not have obligations to a select group of constituents. They are appointed by the community to resolve disputes based upon the guidelines and policies put forward by the community as a whole. I think any arbitrator that simply assessed a case based purely on the volume of good versus bad testimony brought forward without investigating to a reasonable degree the broad scope of an individual's conduct would be abandoning a large part of their duties.

Questions from Antony-22

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

   I assume you're talking about US First Amendment Constitutional rights to freedom of speech. In the scope of Wikipedia it does not. I see very little chance of your inalienable rights being infringed upon as a result of anything that occurred on this website. In any case, that would greatly exceed the scope and responsibilities of the Arbitration Committee. In terms of a line between incivility and harassment, sometimes that difference is indistinguishable depending on the context and intent.

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?

   All editors should adhere to the Wikipedia policies and guidelines as well as adhere to the WMF terms of use while editing on this website. If these are changed to match more closely with workplace standards then that will be done by the community. Again, ArbCom does not decide matters of editorial or site policy.

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?

   None. A resolution for the case would be sought against the English Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. ArbCom has no jurisdiction enforcing the rules of other organizations.

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 they do not. ArbCom's role is in the dispute resolution process of the English Wikipedia and a handful of other tasks outlined in WP:ARBPOL.

Questions from George Ho

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

   I assume you're speaking on a purely philosophical level? Otherwise we would need two nearly identical cases: one where the subject participated and one where they did not and each with a result to then compare. If I had to estimate, I would presume non-participation (in whatever form) would likely be to the detriment of that individual. It may not and again a number of variables could potentially affect whether it did or did not. The case may result in no action taken but it seems more likely that if that were to occur, their participation would be a positive contributing factor in reaching that outcome. By not participating, the subject forfeits a number of opportunities that are typically there for their own benefit. Such as is the opportunity to provide a statement providing insight on their perspective of the dispute. The subject would also not have the opportunity to explain and address evidence brought forth against them. Only they have a unique perspective on their situation and may be able to provide other evidence or context that is not obvious to those reviewing. If in the case of a boycott, in a theoretical case where perhaps the exact issue was about this editor's failure to engagement in resolution efforts, then I could see that being added or an example that substantiates that claim against them. If they were absent for other reasons, such as health, then I would hope the committee would take that into consideration, such as postponing or extending the case, as not being able to participate would be a seeming disadvantage. So lots of possibilities here. In terms of how I would handle these situations if appointed, I'd need to see things on a case-by-case basis.

4. 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?

   @ George Ho: I looked over some of the responses from the other candidates to see if they figured out what you're trying to ask and the seeming universal consensus is that they're just as confused as I am. I suppose they would be desysopped if they did not resign before the final decision to desysop them... but you already state that in your question... As for your second question, who would antagonize them? The Wikipedia community? Are you asking us to predict what the community might do in this hypothetical situation? Why were they desysopped? What happened in the case? Was the decision to desysopped them a controversial and unpopular with the community?
   
   It seems to me that you have a very specific case in mind with all these questions.