Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/PhilKnight

Firstly, a little about me. I've been editing since 2006, originally under the username of 'Addhoc'. I've been involved in mediation, both with WP:MEDCAB and, more recently, WP:MEDCOM. I've also been an admin since 2007, and been active in arbitration enforcement. To give an example of my involvement, I recently set-up and closed this discussion, which established consensus for a 1RR restriction for the Arab-Israeli conflict articles.

Secondly, if appointed to the committee, I would try to avoid pushing the responsibility back to the community. 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.

(I've been asked to include a statement regarding any other accounts. Apart from editing as an IP prior to registering, I haven't used any other accounts.)

• PhilKnight (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 2019 candidate: PhilKnight Candidate statement (create) Questions for the candidate (create) Discuss this candidate (create)

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.

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: Question:

A:

---

Question by IronDuke (original exchange on talk page)

You’ve made some highly questionable blocking decisions in the past. Eleland (talk · contribs), an editor blocked previously for bad behavior, called a Jewish editor here a "cunt…. a huuuuge douchebag…. can go fuck himself” and a Nazi, which is antisemitic. You reduced Eleland’s indef to 1 week, citing a non-existent “rough consensus” on ANI. You falsely blocked User:Breein1007 for “outing” but never apologized or admitted wrongdoing. Why not?

IronDuke 00:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A: This has already been answered on the talk page. To recap, IronDuke, I think you misunderstand how consensus is determined; it isn't merely about counting heads, and the views of involved editors can be discounted. Regarding the other situation you refer to, the block was ok, but the block reason should have been 'civility'.

Question by Shooterwalker

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)[reply]

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.

Question from Noisetier

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

A:PhilKnight answer.

Question from WookieInHeat

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)[reply]

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

Question by Heimstern

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)[reply]

A: 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.

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.

Question from Grondemar

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

Question has been shortened closer to the 75 word limit. Full original question on talk page. 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)[reply]

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.

Discussion has been moved to the talk page.

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)[reply]

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.

Question from Offliner

You said you have been active at WP:AE, and one of your main strengths as arbitrator would be reviewing evidence and drafting proposals. How much time do you think you can devote to investigating evidence during an arbitration case? (Roughly in hours, if possible). In your work at WP:AE, what was the average number of hours you devoted to reviewing a non-trivial report? What was the maximum number of hours? Offliner (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approximately, I guess 20-30 hours a week, and obviously the investigating evidence phase would take as long as it would take, whether that's less than a week, or in an exceptionally complex case, several weeks. Regarding WP:AE, most reports have been relatively straightforward, I don't know what the average is, but I guess around an hour. Given that reports at WP:AE are usually closed out in a few days, I guess the maximum has been a few hours. PhilKnight (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Elonka

You have been a member of WP:MEDCOM for over a year. However, I was unable to find any links to cases where you were an active mediator, except for a Shakespeare one, where you briefly signed on as a replacement mediator in October 2010, and then closed the case shortly thereafter. I did see some WP:MEDCAB work, but not WP:MEDCOM. Could you please point me to any cases you have handled for the Committee? Thanks, --Elonka 02:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct - the only case I've handled for WP:MEDCOM was the Shakespeare authorship question. PhilKnight (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Carcharoth

I've assembled a set of questions for the 12 candidates listed here. The questions are intended to see how you would respond to situations you will probably encounter if elected. I've picked one question for each candidate listed at the link above; the other questions can be seen here. Please feel free to answer only the selected question below, or all of them if you chose. Your question is what would you do in the following situation?: "Parties (or potential parties) to a case fail to make a statement and/or retire". Carcharoth (talk) 05:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carcharoth, although I haven't served on ArbCom, I have dealt extensively with arbitration enforcement, and the scenarios you list are familiar to me. For example, in regard to the specific question, the situation faced at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Littleolive_oil_and_Edith_Sirius_Lee_2 has similarities. Anyway, if there is clearly severe ongoing disruption, then action may well have to be promptly taken. On the other hand, if there isn't any ongoing disruption, the parties may be given a few more days to give a statement. In regard to parties who retire, that doesn't necessarily prevent sanctions being applied - for example, I still applied a one month block to Factomancer (talk · contribs) after he said that he was retiring. PhilKnight (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]