Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/PhilKnight/Questions

General questions

1. Skills/interests: Which of the following tasks will you be prepared and qualified to perform regularly as an arbitrator? Your responses should indicate how your professional/educational background makes you suitable to the tasks.
   • (a) reviewing cases, carefully weighing up the evidence, and voting and commenting on proposed decisions;
   • (b) drafting proposed decisions for consideration by other arbitrators;
   • (c) voting on new requests for arbitration (on the requests page) and motions for the clarification or modification of prior decisions;
   • (d) considering appeals from banned or long-term-blocked users, such as by serving on the Ban Appeals Subcommittee or considering the Subcommittee's recommendations;
   • (e) overseeing the allocation and use of checkuser and oversight permissions, including the vetting and community consultation of candidates for them, and/or serving on the Audit Subcommittee or reviewing its recommendations;
   • (f) running checkuser checks (arbitrators generally are given access to CU if they request it) in connection with arbitration cases or other appropriate requests;
   • (g) carrying out oversight or edit suppression requests (arbitrators are generally also given OS privileges);
   • (h) drafting responses to inquiries and concerns forwarded to the Committee by editors;
   • (i) interacting with the community on public pages such as arbitration and other talk pages;
   • (j) performing internal tasks such as coordinating the sometimes-overwhelming arbcom-l mailing list traffic.

   A: If appointed to the committee, it would be my intention to be involved in all of those areas to some extent. However, the emphasis would be on reviewing evidence, drafting proposals, and voting on proposed decisions. I've been active in arbitration enforcement since 2008, so I have some relevant experience in this area. Also, I've been a coordinator of the Mediation Cabal since 2007, so I've plenty of experience of dealing with queries and internal housekeeping, so I guess I would be involved with those duties as well.

2. Stress: How will you be able to cope with the stress of being an arbitrator, potentially including on- and off-wiki threats and abuse, and attempts to embarrass you by the public "outing" of personal information?

   A: In my admin duties, I've dealt extensively with arbitration enforcement, which is an area that tends to attract criticism, even some abuse. To be honest, I haven't found these situations to be especially stressful. I've edited under my real name since 2008, so I'm not concerned with being 'outed' in that sense. In this context, I'm confident that I'll be able to manage the workload, and the stress which comes with it.

3. Principles: Assume the four principles linked to below are directly relevant to the facts of a new case. Would you support or oppose each should it be proposed in a case you are deciding, and why? A one- or two-sentence answer is sufficient for each. Please regard them in isolation rather than in the context of their original cases.
   • (a) "Private correspondence"

     A: Certainly support this. It isn't merely a question of copyright, but also common courtesy.

   • (b) "Responsibility"

     A: Again, certainly support this. In particular, admins should be prepared to explain their actions in a timely manner.

   • (c) "Perceived legal threats"

     A: I'd support this. Making legal threats is unacceptable, and editors should take care to avoid making a statement that could reasonably be understood as a legal threat.

   • (d) "Outing"

     A: I'd support. If an editor self-identified a while ago, then subsequent posting of this information could possibly be perceived as uncivil, but isn't outing.

4. Strict versus lenient: Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, would you side more with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions, or with those who support a greater number of bans and desysoppings? What factors might generally influence you? Under what circumstances would you consider desysopping an admin without a prior ArbCom case?

   A: I think a lot depends on the underlying dispute. If the dispute is fairly recent, and the parties accept they need to improve their conduct, then lighter sanctions can be applied. However, for disputes that have been ongoing for a while, without much progress, then tougher sanctions may well be required. In regard to desyoppings, I think it's important to remember that ArbCom is the only body that can remove admin status. Consequently, I think ArbCom should be willing to desyop admins that have lost the trust of the community.

5. ArbCom and policies: Do you agree or disagree with this statement: "ArbCom should not be in the position of forming new policies, or otherwise creating, abolishing or amending policy. ArbCom should rule on the underlying principles of the rules. If there is an area of the rules that leaves something confused, overly vague, or seemingly contrary to common good practice, then the issue should be pointed out to the community". Please give reasons.

   A: ArbCom is analogous to a judicial, as opposed to a legislative, body, and shouldn't be creating or abolishing policy, but instead should interpret policy. If an area of policy is confusing or vague, then suggesting the community review this area is perfectly ok. However if the case involves straightforward conduct issues, ArbCom should nevertheless be prepared to sanction those who have acted improperly.

6. Conduct/content: ArbCom has historically not made direct content rulings, e.g., how a disputed article should read. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Can, and should, the Committee establish procedures by which the community can achieve binding content dispute resolution in the event of long-term content disputes that the community has been unable to resolve?

   A: ArbCom shouldn't directly decide content, however in some circumstance it can facilitate a process leading to a content decision. For example, the WP:WESTBANK naming convention was developed in this manner.

7. Success in handling cases: Nominate the cases from 2010 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.

   A: I think 2010 was a good year for the committee, it was prepared to take on challenging cases, and reach tough decisions. I could name cases from previous years that were handled less successfully, but during the last year ArbCom has done a good job.

8. Proposals for change? What changes, if any, in how ArbCom works would you propose as an arbitrator, and how would you work within the Committee towards bringing these changes about?

   A: At the moment, there are relatively few admins who are involved with arbitration enforcement, so in my humble opinion, the committee needs to be cautious about placing more disputes under discretionary sanctions.

Individual questions

This section is for individual questions asked to this specific candidate. Each eligible voter may ask a limit of one "individual" question by posting it below. The question should:

• be clearly worded and brief, with a limit of 75 words in display mode;
• be specific to this candidate (the same individual question should not be posted en masse onto candidates' pages);
• not duplicate other questions (editors are encouraged to discuss the merging of similar questions);

Election coordinators will either remove questions that are inconsistent with the guidelines or will contact the editor to ask for an amendment. Editors are, of course, welcome to post questions to candidates' user talk pages at any time.

Please add the question under the line below using the following format:

1. Question:

   A:

---

1. Question: Regarding the ArbCom remedy that led to WP:WESTBANK. What's your opinion/analysis of this remedy and its effectiveness? How would you like to see ArbCom apply this remedy in future content/guideline disputes? For disputes around a topic area that remains unsettled for multiple months/RFCs/incidents... do you have ideas for how ArbCom can design a process that can help settle more difficult issues, without crossing the line into setting policy? Shooterwalker (talk) 05:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

   A: The ArbCom remedy was successful, in that we now have a naming convention, which has been stable for over a year, and is followed in articles. In my opinion, the factors which led to this were the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, allowing topic banned editors to contribute, and facilitation by arbitrators. The approach could be useful in future, however I think ArbCom should be flexible as to the details, and establish a procedure tailored to each dispute that is accepted by the involved parties and wider community. Or in other words, it's important that neither the parties or the wider community feel they're being railroaded into a binding content decision.

2. Question: regarding your statements here and here. do you feel it would be appropriate for individual arbitrators to form AE policy or act on requests without discussion or notification of parties whom your actions may effect? WookieInHeat (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

   A: Individual arbitrators shouldn't be creating policy, nor should they be acting on requests without discussion or notification of affected parties.

   so are you saying your beliefs have changed since your previous comments where you indicated notification and discussion are unnecessary steps in AE? WookieInHeat (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

   Arbitrators handle cases at WP:RFARB, while admins handle reports at WP:AE, and the rules for each process are quite different. PhilKnight (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

   glad you rethought and retracted your previous comment so quickly. almost shot yourself in the foot there, another 30 seconds and my reply would have already been under it. but back to the topic, what you are saying is that notifications and discussion before using admin tools is only necessary in relation to RFARB? anyway, no further comment from me, i'd vote 'neutral'. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

   Yes, if an editors is blocked following an ArbCom remedy, they will have been notified and given opportunity to submit evidence, however there is no formal requirement to either notify or discuss in relation to WP:AE reports. However, notification and discussion are considered good practice, which I've usually followed. PhilKnight (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

3. Here is my question. Noisetier (talk) 09:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

   A:PhilKnight answer.

   Thx. Do you personnaly think that this proposals could bring a real solution to the matter ? Aren't they to weak ? Noisetier (talk) 09:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

   Well, I think 1RR is worth trying, but it may not be enough. A number of editors expressed the view that if 1RR didn't improve the situation, a new ArbCom case would be needed.

4. You say the committee should be careful about using discretionary sanctions. It seems, though, that existing discretionary sanctions are being used on a regular basis ([1], [2], [3]), including sometimes by you. Could you explain what shortcomings you feel discretionary sanctions have, if any? What alternatives should be used if the committee uses them less often? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

   Placing a dispute under discretionary sanctions is to some extent passing the buck. Instead of sanctioning edit warriors directly, ArbCom can place a dispute under discretionary sanctions, so that sanctions are determined by admins instead. However, there are relatively few admins active in this area, so what happens is that rather than watchlisting articles, admins rely on editors to report violations. In some topics, such the Arab-Israeli conflict, at times there seems to be a greater emphasis on arguing about the discretionary sanctions than improving articles.

5. Question from Barts1a: If you are elected to a position on the Arbitration Committee; How would you change the process to eliminate the clear lack of candidates this year?

   A: I think control of the process is done by the community, as opposed to ArbCom, but I agree with your comments about reducing the mountain of paperwork.

6. Question: If you were a member of the Arbitration Committee when this motion was presented before the committee, how would you have responded, and what reasoning would you have provided to justify your position? –Grondemar 18:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

   A: I'd have reluctantly supported. I don't especially agree with commending the admins who carried out the deletions - I think it would've been preferable to be neutral, however the overall message, that is of giving an amnesty, was probably the right course of action.

   Thank you for your answer. –Grondemar 19:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions from IronDuke

Phil, I’m wondering if you can shed some light on two blocks you were involved with.

1. Eleland (talk · contribs), an editor who had been blocked several times previously for bad behavior, referred to another editor in a highly insulting manner: (Emphasis added, discussion is here.) "I still think Saxophonem is a cunt. I mean it. He's a huuuuge douchebag. He can go fuck himself." After being indef-blocked, Eleland repeatedly called the editor in question, who self-identified as Jewish, a Nazi. As was pointed out, comparing Jews to Nazis is considered antisemitic. Despite all this, you reduced Eleland’s block to 1 week, citing an apparently non-existent “rough consensus” on ANI. Why did you reduce the block when Eleland (who was blocked again for two weeks a few months later for similar behavior) never indicated he would mend his ways? Do you think that was a poor decision on your part? If so, what do you think you’ve learned in the interim that will allow you to avoid such mistakes in the future?

2. You blocked User:Breein1007 for “outing” another user. It was demonstrated in this thread that Breein1007 had not in fact done this, and the user who was claiming it was misrepresenting Breein’s action to fish for a block, which he got from you. Though you consented to another admin’s unblocking, you never apologized for your mistake or admitted you were wrong (unless I missed it, in which case I apologize unreservedly to you). Do you think you would be willing and able to be flexible enough on the committee to admit when you'd made a mistake and attempt to correct it?

Thank you for your time. IronDuke 00:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

1. Just to clarify my involvement, I reduced the block from 3 months to a week, because of a rough consensus at WP:AN/I. Also, after I shortened the block, another admin shortened it further. So, if anything I didn't go far enough.

2. This question has some overlap to the standard question 3d above, and I agree that my block reason should have been something like 'uncivil behavior' instead of 'outing'. Otherwise, the user was blocked for a short period and agreed not to continue the behavior, so although my handling of the situation wasn't ideal, it still had the desired effect.

1. Where are you getting consensus from, rough or otherwise? Leaving out the since banned editors (on both sides) and the sockpuppets, I'm seeing roughly 10-7 against you. And the other admin wasn't really shortening it further, was he? He was just making it consistent with 1 week.

2. Okay, so you think someone posting the name of an editor he was widely known by is worth the same one week block that calling someone a cunt, douchebag, and Jewish Nazi is? IronDuke 01:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

1. I think we disagree because I'm discounting the views of involved editors. Also, there's more to establishing consensus than counting heads.

2. No, in the first situation, the conduct resulted in an indefinite block, and then following promises to behave, it was reduced to 3 months, and then to a week from the time of the appeal. In the second situation, the conduct resulted in a 1 week block, and then following promises to behave, the user was immediately unblocked.

1. Could you list the editors in question? And I'm confused how consensus could mean anything other than counting heads. Consensus can be wrong, but it's still consensus.

2. When did Eleland promise to behave? I don't recall that. Thanks for your quick replies. IronDuke 01:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

IronDuke, the concept of this page is that you ask a question, as opposed to debate. See the instructions above that say 'Each eligible voter may ask a limit of one "individual" question by posting it below.' Otherwise, I understand your position, but I doubt we're going to get anywhere. PhilKnight (talk) 01:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Right, I felt you were possibly being evasive, or at the very least misremembering, and believed and believe that follow-up questions are permitted, especially when the initial question has not been adequately addressed. I understand you may feel differently, and obviously no one can make you answer. IronDuke 02:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Question from Tijfo098

Since you have been the architect of the 1RR restriction for the I-P area, do you think it works towards encouraging discussion? Consider the following not-entirely-hypothetical scenario. Editor X removes a large chunk of an article, which is well sourced, say from the New York Times, and has been in the article for months. Editor Y reverts, then editor X removes the text again. You have argued (diff on request) that editor X is merely being bold, so his first removal does not constitute "undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part" (text from 3RR). Did I read you right? I assume that if editor Y reinserts the text, that would violate 1RR. So, how is this rule, which apparently gives "first strike" advantage to anyone wanting to remove WP:IDONTLIKEIT material, going to improve Wikipedia?

I think it's too early too tell whether 1RR has helped. Regarding your hypothetical, the first removal was a bold edit, the second removal was a revert, and under 1RR, a single revert every 24 hours is permitted. The other editor should wait for 24 hours after the reinstatement of the text. Or in other words, 1RR slows down, but doesn't prevent, edit wars. The hope is that slowing down the edit war allows more time for discussion, and encourages the parties to seek out other opinions. I wrote an essay about this - Wikipedia:In praise of 1RR - which could possibly be of interest. PhilKnight (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

If anyone's interested, the hypothetical could possibly relate to this report at WP:AE. PhilKnight (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Question from NuclearWarfare

What was your opinion of the climate change case? What were your opinions on the decision as a whole? What, if anything, could have been done to improve it? How does the fact that there is significant academic consensus about anthropogenic global warming affect your thinking? NW (Talk) 04:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was a well handled case, and I'm not sure that I could improve on the outcome. Obviously, there is a clear scientific consensus in regard to anthropogenic global warming, however I don't consider that would affect the result of a case focused around user conduct.

Questions from Gilisa

I think it's crucial to refer to your activity in the I-P conflict as you was very active there and as it's one of Wikipedia's most heated and complicated area to edit in. So far it seems that the few admins who are active there didn't success much with improving the situation. I think that most of the admins who were active in this arena have really tried to work it out -some of them despair and ceased from enforcing Wikipedia rules there.

Returning to you, considering your overall activity in the I-P conflict arena- do you think that your past work there had positive contribution? Do you think that your enforcement of WP guidelines was equally applied, more or less, to both sides there (and most, if not all editors do think that there are sides there)? Meaning, if X violated policy i and Y (from the other side) violated policy i, does usually your enforcment was similar to both? Also, please elaborate if you can about how your activity in the I-P conflict editing area, which played significant part of your activity in Wikipedia, demonstrate your being adequate candidate for becoming an ArbCom memeber.--Gilisa (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

In regard to the Israel-Palestine set of articles, I think if myself and others hadn't been involved, the situation would be even more antagonistic than it is now. In terms, of making a positive contribution, I'm still hopeful the recently imposed 1RR restriction will have a calming effect, and facilitate constructive editing. I've tried to be fair and even handed, and use common sense in determining sanctions.

This is a way too general answer. I asked about yourself and not about others- what is your unique positive contribution? How your involvement have helped to extinguished some of the flames? You already referred to the 1RR before when you was asked somewhat related question, but I want to remained you that you are active in the I-P conflict area for very long time and hanging on the 1RR just doesn't cover it. Also, the 1RR was applied for different articles before (e.g., Gaza flotilla article) and wasn't very successful. So again, I just assume it's fair to ask someone with so many admin hours in the I-P conflict area what are the positive contributions he already made and to expect to get a less vague answer than "if myself and others hadn't been involved, the situation would be even more antagonistic than it now" or talking about what you expect to be the future outcome of your actions when I ask you about the outcomes till now and not further than that.

I'm also asking you to give more specific answer about your being impartial when enacting sanctions as an admin in the I-P conflict. It's obvious that you have your own personal interest in the I-P conflict -which by itself doesn't exclude you from handling admin responsibilities at all. But in order of the experimental 1RR restriction, for instance, to success -Wikipedia needs admins who will enforce it impartially and equally, in transparent manner and in a way that relate between the editor action and the admin response.

It's true that the severity of the admin sanctions is allowed to be concluded by a discretionary decision many times, yet a responsible admin -especially in such a heated area of editing is expected to treat all even, or very close to that-so others could reasonably understand his actions. Otherwise the outcome is very negative- though it may bring an end to the very antagonistic situation simply by getting all or most of the editors in one side out of Wikipedia and leaving the others to edit-this way the much larger side can "deal" those left in the smaller side now without causing too much commotion. So, do you think the sanctions you enacted were proportional, fitted the crime and applied equally on editors from both sides? --Gilisa (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Gilisa, I'm not sure what you're talking about, I have a personal interest in the Sri Lankan civil war, and I'm an involved editor for those articles. However for the Israel-Palestine conflict, I don't have a personal interest, that is apart from being interested in real world dispute resolution, which is why I've been an uninvolved admin. I'm sorry you don't like my first answer, but I honestly consider myself to be impartial, and as I've already said, I've tried to be fair and even handed.

Yes, you was technically uninvolved admin, that's not what I considered important. Nevertheless, I will explain what I was meaning, maybe you and I having different definitions for "interest" vs "personal interest", but I never argued you were involved in editing articles in the I-P conflict or declared POV on the I-P conflict, if you did I would say that automatically you should be excluded from taking any admin responsibilities in this area-you can understand that it wasn't my argument. By pointing to your interest in the I-P conflict I was aiming, for instance, to the "This user participates in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration." box on your user page. It seems like I can get nothing but very general answers from you-so I'll try different approach:

I want your reference to this thread and your addressing the subject of this thread on his TP. You then find that the one week topic ban was suggested by another admin (about who I won't speak here, but I consider very much to be very, or even most responsible for the situation in the I-P conflict area of editing) "would be a reasonable course of action". My questions are simple: Have you ever in the past, and in the I-P conflict area, have addressed and offered other very experienced editor from the opposite side to get out so easily after such a severe and continues disruptive behavior, after making very bad taste offensive political statements which very clearly indicate that he can't separate his own POV from Wikipedia? Have you ever seen one week topic ban as reasonable course of action against editor who refused to ceased from making comments, who was warned twice by two different admins in no time and who blamed three other people to deliberately misinterpret him after he made several comments that were one step, at max, from getting into racism? So, do you still find this judgment as reasonable? How exactly would you act against such editors in future? --Gilisa (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Question from Mbz1

According to European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights expressed in its working definition for antisemitism "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis" is considered to be an antisemitism. Would you block an editor for BLP violation, if an editor is to say that a cartoonist that uses those comparisons in his cartoons is drawing antisemitic pictures and therefore is an antisemite? --Mbz1 (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mbz1, to be perfectly honest, I think this is one of the best questions I've seen this election. Anyway, my response is the background to making the comment would need to be examined. Wikipedia editors are expected to engage in constructive dialogue in consensus forming discussions, and if the comment was made in an otherwise constructive discussion about improving the cartoonist's biography, I think nothing more than cautionary advice would be required. Conversely, editors should avoid engaging in battleground behavior. Just because an entire topic area has editors from both sides being aggressive towards each other, that in itself doesn't imply that such behavior is now acceptable. So, if the comment was made in an entirely pointless confrontation between editors, then sanctions such as a block or ban for could be appropriate. That said, the conduct on the other side of the confrontation would also need to be examined, and sanctions, including a block or ban could also be appropriate.