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

This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee.

Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
Unsure about the election process?
- Please review the election rules.
Issue with inappropriate commentary or questions?
- Please notify an election volunteer.

Discussion of question by Shooterwalker

Don't let me be a pest. But what I'm really asking is about some ideas for "a procedure tailored to each dispute" (which I know is tricky without knowing the exact nature of the dispute). In situations where an ArbCom incident is linked to a content or policy dispute (a failed RFC), are there remedies that ArbCom can use to make the dispute resolution process more effective where past RFCs fell apart? (I'd encourage you to amend your answer, just to keep the discussion centralized.) Shooterwalker (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer here if I may. Personally, I don't believe the key ingredient was a procedure or remedy. I believe the most significant factor in the success of the WP:WESTBANK guideline was the involvement of Coppertwig (talk · contribs) who was the driving force behind it. In terms of what can be learned from this, ArbCom needs to find someone who has the trust and respect of all sides, in order for the process to succeed. PhilKnight (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That'll do. Thanks for that :) Shooterwalker (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Lar

So far, I've only answered Q9 and 10. Hopefully, I'll have time to answer the others. PhilKnight (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to readers: This is a copy of User:Lar/ACE2010/Questions. These questions were taken from last year and the year before and modified to fit changes in circumstance.

Notes to respondents

In some cases I am asking about things that are outside ArbCom's remit to do anything about. I am interested in your thoughts even so.
Note also that in many cases I ask a multi part question with a certain phrasing, and with a certain ordering/structure for a reason, and if you answer a 6 part question with a single generalized essay that doesn't actually cover all the points, I (and others) may not consider that you actually answered the question very well at all.
It is also Not Helpful to answer "yes, yes, no, yes" (because you are expecting people to count on their fingers which answers go with which questions...) go ahead and intersperse your answers. We'll know it was you. No need to sign each part unless you want us to know which parts you answered when.
For those of you that ran last year (or the year before, etc.), feel free to cut and paste a previous year's answers if you still feel the same way, but some of the questions have changed a bit or expanded so watch out for that.
Where a question overlaps one of the standard questions I have tried to note that and explain what elaboration is desired.

The questions

Is the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? In particular, how do you feel about the following suggestions:
a) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.

b) "Default to Delete" - If a BLP AfD or DRv discussion ends up as "no consensus" the default is to delete. A clear consensus to KEEP is required, else the article is removed.

c) "Liberal semi protection" - The notion that if a BLP is subject to persistent vandalism from anons it should get semi protection for a long time (see User:Lar/Liberal Semi ... we were handing out 3 months on the first occurance and 1 year for repeats)

d) "WP:Flagged Protection" - a trial, which ended up being called WP:Pending changes instead. Please comment on the trial results as they specifically relate to the BLP problem. (there is another question about revisions generally) Would you do anything different in the actual implementation?

e) "WP:Flagged Revisions" - the actual real deal, which would (presumably) be liberally applied.
Given that it is said that the English Wikipedia ArbCom does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that ArbCom does not decide content questions:
a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?

b) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?

c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.
Note: this question has some overlap with #5 and #6 in the general set but goes farther. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate.
It has been said that the English Wikipedia has outgrown itself, that the consensus based approach doesn't scale this big. Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you agree, what should be done about it? Can the project be moved to a different model (other wikis, for example, use much more explicit voting mechanisms)? Should it be? Consider the controversy around some election provisions... we had an RfC on the topic early this year, but by the election we still didn't have closure on some open questions. Does the recent adoption of Secure Poll for some uses change your answer?
Note: there may possibly be some overlap with #7 and #8 in the general set but it's really a different tack. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate.
Please discuss your personal views on Sighted/Flagged revisions/Pending Changes. What did you think of the trial? Should we ultimately implement some form of this? What form? Do you think the community has irretrievably failed to come to a decision about this? Why? What is the role, if any, of ArbCom in this matter? What is the reason or reasons for the delay in implementing?
Wikipedia was founded on the principle that anonymity, or at least pseudonymity, is OK. You do not need to disclose your real identity, if you do not wish to, to edit here. You are not forbidden from doing so if you wish.
a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?

b) If you do not support it, is there a way to change it at this late date? How? Should it be (even if you do not support it, you may think it should not be changed)?

c) With anonymity comes outing. Lately there has been some controversy about what is outing and what is not... if someone has previously disclosed their real identity and now wishes to change that decision, how far should the project go to honor that? Should oversight be used? Deletion? Editing away data? Nothing?

d) If someone has their real identity disclosed elsewhere in a way that clearly correlates to their Wikipedia identity, is it outing to report or reveal that link? Why or why not?

e) Do you openly acknowledge your real identity? Should all Arbitrators openly acknowledge their real identity? Why or why not? If you are currently pseudonymous, do you plan to disclose it if elected? (this is somewhat different than Thatcher's 1C from 2008 in that it's more extensive)

f) Does the WMF make it clear enough that pseudonymity is a goal but not a guarantee? What should the WMF be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity? What should ArbCom be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity?

g) If an editor clearly and deliberately outs someone who does not wish to be outed, what is the appropriate sanction, if any? Does the question differ if the outing occurs on wiki vs off-wiki? (this is somewhat similar but different from Thatcher's 1D from 2008)
Note: this ties in with #3(d) in the general set but drills in a lot farther. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate but I expect just referencing it with no further elaboration won't be sufficient.
Stalking is a problem, both in real life and in the Wikipedia context.
a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?

b) What responsibility, if any, does WMF have to try to prevent real life stalking? What aid, if any, should the WMF give to someone victimised. Balance your answer against the provisions of the privacy policy.

c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?

d) What special provisions should be made, if any, to deal with stalkers who are using Wikipedia to harass victims? Consider the case where the stalkee is a real life person and the harassment is done by manipulating their article, as well as the case where the stalkee is an editor here.

e) Where is the line between stalking or harassing an editor and reviewing the contributions of a problematic editor to see if there are other problems not yet revealed?

f) Are there editors who overplay the stalking card? What's to be done about that?
Note: this also ties in with #3(d) in the general set but drills in a lot farther. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate but I expect just referencing it with no further elaboration won't be sufficient.
A certain editor has been characterized as "remarkably unwelcome" here, and the "revert all edits" principle has been invoked, to remove all their edits when discovered. In the case of very unwelcome and problematic editors, do you support that? What about for more run of the mill problem editors? What about in the case of someone making a large number of good edits merely to test this principle? Do you think blanket unreverting removed edits is appropriate or would you suggest that each edit be replaced with a specific summary standing behind it, or some other variant?
What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:
a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?

b) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?

c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?

d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not (in each case)?

e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )

f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?
Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with vested contributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
There's most certainly a problem in regard to vested contributors, and I believe we create this problem by handing out too many second chances. I wrote an essay WP:SLACK about this.
Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with factionalism? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
In context of ethnic or nationalistic disputes, there certainly is some factionalism. Wikiprojects such as the Israel Palestine Collaboration, the Ireland Collaboration, and the Sri Lanka Reconciliation have helped to some extent.
What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :) If you answered this question last year, has your answer changed? :) :) :) If so, why? :) :): ): :)

Submitted 14:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC) by ++Lar: t/c

It's now been well over 10 days, do you plan to answer any more of these? The two you did answer I found rather lacking when compared to the level of detail and thought other candidates exhibited. Contrast with your extended engagement with IronDuke. ++Lar: t/c 14:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, candidates are not required to answer copy and paste questions. Please don't apply pressure. In contrast, IronDuke asked questions that were specific to this candidate. Jehochman ^Talk 14:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, I promised to answer question 9 and 10, which I have. I didn't promise to answer the others, and I equally I haven't answered other generic questions, but I have answered specific questions. During the election period, I've been busy with WP:AE, and there are currently open reports there which require my attention. PhilKnight (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions/comments from Ncmvocalist and responses from PhilKnight

If it's not inconvenient for you, I'd like it if you could respond directly under each question/comment. Thank you in advance. Ncmvocalist (talk)

Decisions

Q1. One might interpret your election statement (and your answers to a few of the qusetions so far) as saying that you would have accepted the current MMN request for arbitration as framed by Sandstein instead of declining it in favour of actual dispute resolution. I'd like to clarify whether this would be the correct way to interpret your statement? In other words, if you were an arbitrator right now, what would you have said in response to that request for arbitration - would you accept or decline it, and why? Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would've voted to accept the case. If it was a straightforward issue of an admin making a controversial unblock, then I'd suggest a WP:RFC/ADMIN, but there are also wider issues relating to the blocking policy. Also, in regard to MMN, the original block could have been examined, and issues relating to when it's acceptable to place an indefinite block could have also been examined.

Administrators

Q1. In your opinion, are unblocks more harmful than blocks? Why? Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a poorly considered block is very disheartening to the blocked editor, while a poorly considered unblock is somewhat disheartening to the admin, so on balance, no.

Followup question So just to clarify, you think a poorly considered unblock is about equally as harmful to a blocking admin as a poorly considered block is on an editor? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, less harmful. A poorly considered block is very disheartening to a blocked editor, while a poorly considered unblock is merely somewhat disheartening to a blocking admin. PhilKnight (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Q 2, 3, 4 relate to the following scenario:

A request for arbitration is submitted concerning an administrator who: (1) is territorial over their admin actions - refusing to permit their peers to modify their actions in any way, (2) has a history of threatening their peers with arbitration requests, and (3) appears to generally view their role on the project as a combination of cop, prosecutor, and jury (in favour of convictions via blocks) rather than the actual role that many Wikipedians expect of admins. The admin in question spends a lot of time in AE, praising and defending AC, as well as statements that you have made as an arbitrator. This request is filed at a time where AC is still the only body capable of desysopping an admin. Assume that a request for comment on user conduct has resulted in mixed responses, but the admin in question has refused to heed any requests to change his approach.

Q2. How would you deal with or respond to this situation? Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the straightforward answer is I'd accept the case. In my opinion, there's a wider issue here of ArbCom passing the buck to admins by invoking yet more discretionary sanctions, which can result in over-stressed admins, which isn't good for the community, or the individual admin. The problem is that we don't have enough admins willing to volunteer in this area, so a few admins are taking on too much, and risking burn out, or other problems. My view is that ArbCom should be cautious about placing any more disputes under discretionary sanctions, and should instead place the individual sanctions themselves wherever possible.

Q3. Your answer to question 2 correctly identifies a few issues regarding burn out. However, I am unclear about your approach to preventing the issues from past disputes/remedies. That is, what (if anything) will you (try to) do about the topic areas that are already under AC discretionary sanctions?

It was my hope that WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement would allow a situation where if uninvolved editors felt that an admin was becoming over-stressed, the admin could temporarily step back from either a specific dispute, or, if needed, from all ArbCom enforcement duties. I think that at least some of the time, admins continue in ArbCom enforcement because they're concerned that if they stop, the situation will deteriorate further. However, this hasn't happened in the way that I hoped. ArbCom has issued statements encouraging more admins to be involved in this area, and there have been posts on the admin noticeboard, which have resulted in enough admins to take up the slack resulting from Sandstein taking a break from this area. Otherwise, ArbCom could tell an admin to step back from a specific area of enforcement, or from ArbCom enforcement altogether.

Q4. {placeholder}

Discussion of question by Tijfo098

If I'm allowed a follow-up question, what is the difference between a revert (as defined in 3RR) and a "bold edit", like section blanking, which removes the contribution of other editor(s)? Tijfo098 (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry of my use of the word 'bold' is causing confusion. I only used it because you mentioned WP:BRD in this edit summary. Anyway, I think a good explanation was given on the WP:AE noticeboard recently, which was that if the article was 0RR would any removal of any text be permitted? I think the common sense answer has to be 'yes', and so the first edit can't be counted as a revert. PhilKnight (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarification. I think it highlights a serious problem in the policy, so I've started a RfC on it. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom election questions from Rschen7754

Due to the changed format of this year's election questioning, I have removed all the questions that are covered by the general election questions (but please be sure to answer those thoroughly!) If you wouldn't mind answering the following brief questions that evaluate areas not covered by the general questions, that would be great!

What are your views on a) WP:COMPETENCE b) WP:NOTTHERAPY?
Do a group of editors focusing on a specific style guideline or convention have the ability and/or right to impose on other groups of editors their particular interpretation of the style guideline, or their own standardized convention, even if there is significant opposition?

Thank you. Rs chen 7754 07:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Sven Manguard

I decided to ask these questions after reflecting on an hour long conversation over the IRC with an editor that I hold in very high regard. I intermixed her concerns with my own concerns to form this short list of general questions. Please answer them truthfully, and draw upon whatever experiences or knowledge you possess. I apologize in advance for all the questions being compound questions. Thanks in advance, sincerely, Sven Manguard _Talk

What is the greatest threat to the long term survivability or viability of Wikipedia? If the threat is currently affecting Wikipedia, what actions can be done to limit it? If the the threat is not yet affecting the project, what actions can be taken to keep it that way? What is the overall health of the project today?
A.
What are the greatest strengths and greatest weaknesses of the project? What processes do we do well, and what processes fail? What content areas do we excel at and where do we need to improve?
A.
What is your view on the current level of participation in Wikipedia? Does Wikipedia have enough active contributors today? Does it have too many?
A.
Does Wikipedia do a good job at retaining its active contributors? What strengths and weaknesses within the project can you point to that affect retention? Are recent high profile burnouts indicative of a problem within the project or are they unfortunate but isolated events?
A.
Do you believe that the project should prioritize on improving existing content or creating new content. Is there an ideal ratio of creation:improvement? For the purposes of this question, assume that you have complete control over where the community as a whole focuses their efforts. This is, of course, a hypothetical situation.
A.
Do you believe that Wikipedia should allow people to contribute without making accounts?
A.
If you could make one change to Wikipedia, what would it be, and why?
A.

Full question and discussion with 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)[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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Gilisa, I'm not going to continue debating this with you here in this forum. If you're suggesting that you consider another candidate, who has the initials GWH to be an impartial admin, then I agree, but then again, I voted for him earlier today. For that matter, I also voted for another candidate with the initial S. Otherwise, I think you seem to be exaggerating relatively minor differences in style, as to when to counsel an editor, and when to ban, and construing a vast political difference, which doesn't exist in reality. Also, it's worth noting that I've been accused of being pro-Israel, just as you appear to be accusing me of pro-Palestine sympathies - from my perspective, just about anybody who tries to help in this area, is going to be accused of bias by both sides.

I didn't suggest anything you suggested about GWH (I can explain easily, taking example from many cases he was involved in, why I have completely different evaluation about him than yours), and I wonder how you got that but nevermind. As for S, he's truly great example for one who many times used heavy hand against my "side" and nevertheless I have no complaint about him because he was impartial in that essence that none of his decisions, whether I liked it or not (and many wasn't on the behalf of my side), wasn't unreasonable and definitely not too unreasonable, and he treated even editors on both sides. Telling that ".. from my perspective, just about anybody who tries to help in this area, is going to be accused of bias by both sides..." is just too easy answer (and not precise, though it may be the situation for some admins- it doesn't mean that biased admins (to one side) are not to be found (and in this case the allegations from the side he/she's side with are only helpful hide the bias) or that admin bias can't be evaluated through the cases one admin was involve in). Also, does WP allow candidates to tell about other admins they voted to? It sounds a bit like canvasing to me. --Gilisa (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Gilisa, I misunderstood, I thought you were saying something completely different. I have no idea about the rules, but I won't make any further comments about the other candidates. PhilKnight (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extra question by Shooterwalker

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)[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.

Discussion of question by Noisetier

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)[reply]
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.

Discussion of question by WookieInHeat

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Answer what? You didn't really ask a question. You presented a one-sided perspective on a couple of administrative decisions that you personally disagree with, and then tacked a few interrogative words on the end. There was substantial support for PhilKnight's action, if not outright consensus, among uninvolved admins in this AN/I thread. Granted, it's a bit difficult to pull out that consensus because of the volume of ranting from partisan editors, but that's what admins are supposed to do, and PhilKnight did it.

Since this is a venue to ask good-faith questions of candidates, rather than harass them over specific past decisions you dislike, maybe we can move on? If these were good-faith questions, you'd probably have accepted Phil's response to #2, in which he admitted error in specifying a block rationale while defending the outcome of his action. Instead, you've just shifted your line of attack against him. Please, take the follow-up somewhere more appropriate, if indeed any venue on Wikipedia is appropriate to rehash personal grievances over long-since-expired admin actions. MastCell ^Talk 18:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I’m a bit puzzled by this. “Maybe we can move on?” Did you not see the date stamp? The last entry in this discussion was from November 20th, well over a week ago. I think Phil and I had both moved on, and happily so. Perhaps you were confused by Jehochman’s porting this here from the main question page? I think the exchange Phil and I had was quite revealing, but I haven’t felt anything more needed to be added.

However, as you’ve expressed an interest in the topic, I may say that your question-begging analysis is wrong in pretty much every particular. I was asking a question, about two bad blocking decisions. Do I have a preconceived idea of the answer I’m looking for? Sure… why wouldn’t I? I was hoping Phil would see what he’d done was wrong, and give some sense of why and how we could expect something different from him in the future. That was not to be; he and I obviously disagree.

And again, I see no consensus at all on the ANI page. There are some fun uses of leading language -- “rough consensus,” “substantial support” -- which are, interestingly, not consensus. I see 10-7 against Phil’s action, might be off by a few in either direction (and yes, people involved in the issue are allowed to have an opinion that’s counted). But that’s not consensus. And I don’t see why we’re allowing people with histories of bad behavior to go around calling each other “cunt,” “douchebag,” and most disturbingly against a self-identified Jewish editor, “Nazi” with mild punishment, even had there been a “rough consensus” of a few editors on ANI, which there wasn’t.

As for point 2, It’s true, I could have and maybe should have pressed harder on the issue of changing a week-long block rationale from “outing” (which is quite defensible) to “uncivil behavior” (which was A: really not the case, and B: not at all defensible. But to what end? I was disturbed by the handling of both blocks, and have every right to question Phil about them when he’s running for arbcom.

“Long-since-expired admin actions?” Did you really write that? You’ve got quite a bit of work to do if you want to go around and criticize everyone who’s questioning a candidate on some action they took in the past. Seriously, I don’t think you’re doing Phil any favors by dragging this out. IronDuke 19:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct that I misread the timestamps. I noticed the discussion because Jehochman had moved it around today, and incorrectly believed it to be an active one. Since, as you note, you and Phil have moved on, it's probably best to leave it there. MastCell ^Talk 19:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Offliner

Do you believe the nationalities of Wikipedia's editors are fairly represented in the current ArbCom? Could you please reveal your own nationality? If you do not wish to reveal your exact nationality, could you at least state whether you are from an anglophone country? Offliner (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the first question, I honestly don't know. Obviously, Brad is from New York, but I'm not sure where the others are from. Anyway, I'm British. PhilKnight (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC),[reply]