Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements/KnightLago/Questions for the candidate

=General questions=
 * General Questions submitted by the users indicated. For more information, please see the guidelines posted here.

Arbitrators' skills
(1) Thank you for running, and good luck with your candidacy. What do you find to be the most important characteristic of a successful arbitrator on Wikipedia? This can be either a historic trait seen in one or more of the 53 arbitrators who have served since 2004, or an ideal trait that you would like to see in future arbitrators. (UltraExactZZ)
 * A: One of the most important qualities of a good arbitrator is patience. Patience is an extremely important requirement because arbitration cases are not presented in a vacuum. There are competing interests and views not only from parties, but from the community as well. All of these opinions have to be listened too. There are also volumes of evidence that must be sifted through, and then properly weighed. This requires a lot of time and thoughtful consideration. KnightLago (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(2) Please provide evidence of your ability to write concise, clear English. You may wish to refer to your ability to detect ambiguities and unintended consequences in text such as principles, remedies and injunctions. (Tony1)
 * A: For evidence, see Florida Atlantic University and USS City of South Haven (ID-2527). I have experience as an Arbitration Committee Clerk in dealing with the unintended consequences of vague principles, remedies, and injunctions. If elected I will strive to write everything in a clear, and succinct manner. KnightLago (talk) 01:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(3) Bearing in mind your individual skills and interests, your familiarity with the arbitration process, and your other on- and off-wiki commitments, which of the following tasks will you be prepared and qualified to perform regularly as an arbitrator:
 * (A) Reviewing cases, carefully analyzing the evidence, and drafting proposed decisions for consideration by other arbitrators;
 * (B) Reviewing cases, carefully analyzing the evidence, and voting and commenting on proposed decisions drafted by other arbitrators;
 * (C) Reviewing and voting on new requests for arbitration (on the requests page) and for the clarification or modification of prior decisions;
 * (D) Reviewing and helping to dispose of appeals from banned or long-term-blocked users, such as by serving on the Banned User Subcommittee or considering the subcommittee's recommendations;
 * (E) Overseeing the granting and use of Checkuser and Oversight permissions, including vetting candidates for these privileges and supervising elections for them, and/or serving on the Audit Subcommittee or reviewing its recommendations;
 * (F) Drafting responses to other inquiries and concerns forwarded to the committee by editors;
 * (G) Running checkuser checks (arbitrators generally are given access to checkuser if they request it) in connection with arbitration cases or other appropriate requests;
 * (H) Carrying out oversight or edit suppression requests (arbitrators generally are given oversight privileges also);
 * (I) Internal tasks such as coordinating the sometimes-overwhelming Arbcom-l mailing list traffic, reminding colleagues of internal deadlines, and the like;
 * (J) Assisting with policy- and procedure-related discussions, such as working to finalize the long-pending revision of the Arbitration Policy;
 * (K) Other arbitration-related activities (please explain). (Newyorkbrad)
 * A: I expect to perform all regularly except the use of Checkuser. I know my own limitations, and at this time I am not technically competent enough to be using the tool. KnightLago (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Challenges of being an arbitrator
(4) As an arbitrator you will find that most of your work is done away from enwiki, either on mailing lists or on the private Arbitration wiki. How will you cope with the tension between the community desire for openness and the need for confidentiality for personal information about parties to arbitration decisions? (Sam Blacketer)
 * A: I would err on the side of confidentiality. But I do not favor keeping something from the community unless there is a compelling reason to do so. I favor working in the light rather than the dark. KnightLago (talk) 02:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(5) Sociologists have spotted that individual members of groups of people sometimes suppress independent and dissenting thoughts which they think may be unpopular with the other group members. As the Arbitration Committee depends on the cohesion of its members, and has to take controversial decisions, do you believe that there is a need to take steps to avoid this approach of 'groupthink'? If so, what steps would you take? (Sam Blacketer)
 * A: Absolutely. I promise to voice my true opinion, even if it was not popular, and consider the minority opinions of fellow arbitrators. This would guarantee that opinions are not suppressed merely to maintain the cohesion of the group. KnightLago (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(6) I've noticed that many arbitrators, both former and sitting, have tended to migrate away from mainspace editing as they become involved in the project's more political aspects. Do you feel it is important to maintain some level of contributions to articles even as an admin, bureaucrat, and of course, arbitrator? (Juliancolton)
 * A: I have noticed the same thing. I do believe it is appropriate to strive to maintain some level of contributions to articles. Article development is what we should all be focused on here. However, I would not set any minimum level of participation. All editors are free to contribute as they wish. I, personally, tend to ebb and flow in working on articles. KnightLago (talk) 02:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(7) Arbitrators will have access to at least the following mailing lists: Functionaries-en, checkuser-l, oversight-l, clerks-l, and arbcom-l. How much traffic to you anticipate on each? How much of that traffic will you actually read? (Tznkai)
 * A: I anticipate a huge amount of traffic. I am already a member of the Clerk and Volunteer Response Team mailing lists, so I understand how hectic lists can become at times. I would strive to read as much as possible, though focus on the Arbcom, Clerks, and Functionaries lists. KnightLago (talk) 02:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(8) An arbitrator who is a participant in a case, and thus recused from acting in his or her official capacity, still retains access to confidential materials (mailing list posts, the ArbCom wiki, etc). Is her or his reading these materials acceptable? What (if any) use of these materials by the recused arbitrator is acceptable, and what safeguards (if any) are needed to prevent inappropriate usage? I am thinking (for example) about actions like making case-related comments on the ArbCom list, emailing editors who have submitted private evidence, and posting additional evidence / comments on wiki relevant to concerns expressed privately by the other committee members. Should inappropriate usage be dealt with publicly on wiki, or privately between ArbCom members? (EdChem)
 * A: I think it would depend on the case. If the arbitrator were merely participating in the case, rather than the subject of the case, then I would be fine with them reading the materials. I would not, however, find it acceptable for them to use any of that information in the case, participate in any case related discussion on the Arbcom mailing list, or email editors who have submitted private evidence, or post any information they were not the immediate source of. If their conflict of interest bled over into the case I would disregard anything they may present, and publicly note the situation. I would first, of course, try to talk with them privately. If the arbitrator were the subject of the case, then removal of access to such information would need to be strongly considered. Arbitrators are first and foremost editors, just like everyone else. KnightLago (talk) 02:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom and admins
(9) Should the process of (a) reviewing admin actions that may have breached policy, and (b) desysopping, remain solely with the Committee (and Jimbo), or would you prefer that a community-based process also perform these roles? (LessHeard vanU)
 * A: I would like to see a fair community based approach. It is logical that if the community grants a right, it should be able to remove it. However, I understand and recognize that the community can become deeply divided in certain circumstances and in those cases the Arbitration Committee is needed. KnightLago (talk) 03:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(10) Over the past year Arbcom has desysopped a number of admins. Generally do you think Arbcom has (a) not desysopped enough (b) got it about right (c) desysopped too much over this period? Why? (Davewild)
 * A: I think the Arbitration Committee has gotten it about right. The deysopps have been done after careful consideration and involved a wide range of situations. A lot of these situations are judgment calls. KnightLago (talk) 03:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(11) Do you support or oppose the recent Committee practice of bypassing RfA by directly re-granting previously revoked administrative privileges without community comment or approval? (Finn Casey)
 * A: I think it depends on the situation. If there is some reason to believe the community would object, I would vote to send to it RfA. The community's remit is to grant rights, especially in controversial circumstances, not the Arbitration Committee. KnightLago (talk) 03:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(12) Would you consider taking a case where it is clear that an admin has lost community trust, but there has been no RfC or attempts to resolve the issue? (Majorly)
 * A: It would largely depend on the situation. While Arbitration should be the last stop in the dispute resolution process, I recognize there are often circumstances where other methods to resolve the issue are not feasible. In those situations, where it was clear an administrator had lost the trust of the community, the loss of trust would be a factor in my deciding whether or not to accept the case.

(13) Under what circumstances would you consider desysopping an administrator without a prior ArbCom case? Be specific. (NuclearWarfare)
 * A: The first thing that comes to mind is socking in violation of policy, if they were a banned user, conduct fundamentally inconsistent with being an administrator (think blocking Jimbo, vandalism spree, etc.), wheel warring, etc. I am not sure if it is possible to make an exhaustive list, but mainly conduct that shows plainly that the administrator can no longer continue in that role in the short term. Barring those situations, a case would need to be opened. KnightLago (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(14) If it's discovered that an admin is a sock of a banned user, and that some users (including, but not only, admins) who had voted in Example's RFA knew this at the time, what measures should be taken against those voters? (Od Mishehu)
 * A: Administrators hold positions of trust in the community. Knowingly violating that trust by aiding a banned user is unacceptable and should lead to a loss of administrator rights. Regarding non-administrators, it would depend on the situation, and their involvement in the deception.

ArbCom's role and structure
(15) Over the past year Arbcom has made a few change in how it runs, such as introducing the Ban Appeals Subcommittee and establishing the Arbitration Committee noticeboard. What changes (if any) would you make in how the Arbitration Committee works? (Davewild) 19:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A: I think these are positive changes. With the size of the community it is important that the committee delegate some tasks. I strongly favor openness when possible. The noticeboard is a step in the right direction. I would propose a change to how the committee hears cases. As mentioned in my candidate statement, I would advocate for a system like a Court of Appeals, where a small number of judges, in our situation about a third of the committee, are assigned to each case. SirFozzie is advocating something similar. If this approach were adopted, there would be less people required to go through the evidence, and arbitrators could spend more time on their cases or other matters. If the case was somehow significant, then the committee could sit en banc. This would bring cases to a quicker resolution and allow users to return to editing. KnightLago (talk) 14:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(16) In last year's election one of the successful candidates said in answer to a question "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. A discussion and the normal wiki process should generally be allowed to resolve the matter" Do you agree or disagree, and why? (Davewild)
 * A: I completely agree with Vassyana. It is exclusively the community's remit, not the Arbitration Committee, to form policies. And if there is an unclear area, the Arbitration Committee should bring it to the attention of the community. The community should be setting policies, and the Arbitration Committee should be enforcing them. KnightLago (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(17) ArbCom cases divert vast amounts of editor time and goodwill into often pointless arguments, causing constructive editors to feel oppressed and disillusioned, and leading to "remedies" that are in fact retributive punishments (often ill-targeted) that fail to remedy any real problems. Do you agree, and what would you do about it? (Kotniski)
 * A: I do not like the phrasing of this question. Yes, Arbcom cases sometimes lead to needless arguing, and some good editors have become disillusioned as a result. But cases are brought to Arbcom because the issue has no hope of resolution in the community without intervention. So without arbitration the timesink caused by arguing would needlessly continue. This is not to say the Arbitration Committee is perfect, as you mention there have been ill-targeted remedies, but a majority of the committee's work is worthwhile. KnightLago (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(18) Not all Wikimedia Projects have an Arbitration Committee, and some that did have a committee no longer do so. Do you accept or reject the view that the English Wikipedia benefits from having an Arbitration Committee? Why? How important is the ArbCom dispute resolution process? (Camaron/Majorly)
 * A: I accept the view that the English Wikipedia benefits from having an Arbitration Committee. The English Wikipedia is unique among Wikimedia Projects due to its large community and high profile. With a large community composed of diverse users with varying interests and opinions, disputes are bound to arise. In order to solve those disputes we ask users to follow the dispute resolution process. The dispute resolution process, while not perfect, generally solves the majority of controversies. The disputes that the process cannot solve, such as issues that divide the community, are the reason the Arbitration Committee is the last resort. KnightLago (talk) 01:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(19) A number editors in the community have expressed concern that the Arbitration Committee is becoming too powerful and expansive in response to some committee actions including the creation of the Advisory Council on Project Development and BLP special enforcement. Do you agree with them? How will you deal with such concerns if you are successfully elected to the committee? (Camaron)
 * A: I think the Arbitration Committee has overstepped its mandate on occasion. The Advisory Council on Project Development is a prime example. I do not think this overreaching was done to seize and expand the committee's power, but was merely an attempt to remedy problems the arbitrators saw. This is demonstrated by BLP special enforcement, which gives administrators more tools to work in an extremely difficult area. If elected, I would encourage the committee to put forth its ideas for community discussion, rather than merely acting on them from high and expecting others to follow. KnightLago (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone asked me a question about this, so I want to be more clear here. I absolutely support the continued implementation of structure. Structure keeps the committee on track in its work, keeps the community informed, encourages smooth functioning, and helps improve Wikipedia overall. The Audit and Ban Appeals Subcommittees are great examples of this. As a Clerk, I also know this from firsthand experience. But, the community must have meaningful input. Without meaningful input, as the Advisory Council shows, attempted improvements are doomed to failure. KnightLago (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(20) Conduct/content: ArbCom has historically not made any direct content rulings, i.e., how an article should read in the event of a dispute. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Should it sanction users for repeated content policy violations, even if there is no record of repeated conduct policy violations? Can 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? (Heimstern)
 * A: The community has made it very clear that it wants the Arbitration Committee to stay out of content disputes. Any binding resolution in the event of long-term content disputes would have to come directly from the community itself. As I said above, if they committee has an idea it feels is worthwhile it should present it to the community, but not in a manner that speaks of ruling by fiat. KnightLago (talk) 03:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(21) Nationalist and ethnic edit wars: In my opinion and many others', the worst problem to plague Wikipedia. Do you have any thoughts on how to solve this problem? For example, should the Arbcom be more willing to issue sanctions, such as bans, topic restrictions and revert restrictions (and if possible, maybe comment on when different types of sanctions are appropriate)? Should the community, particularly administrators, take on more of the responsibility for this problem? If so, how? (Heimstern)
 * A: I agree with you, Moreschi, and the others. Having had firsthand experience clerking Macedonia 2, and currently the Eastern European mailing list case, I know the tremendous conflict and disruption that results from nationalist and ethnic infighting. The problem is that there is no real solution to these disputes. We often have editors on both sides who have been raised since childhood to believe that one point of view is correct above all others. We cannot hope to change that opinion. The only thing we can do is enforce our policies. I think you hit the nail right on the head in regard to what the Arbitration Committee should do. I am in favor of bans, especially topic bans, and edit and revert restrictions. I also favor a strict interpretation of no personal attacks and would encourage civility. While extremely difficult areas to work in, I would definetely encourage the community and administrators to take on some of these problems and would give them great latitude and deference to do so. KnightLago (talk) 04:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(22) Civility: How and when to enforce civility restrictions remains controversial. How admins should enforce it is largely outside the scope of this election, so I ask you this: To what extent and how should ArbCom enforce civility? Is incivility grounds for desysopping? Banning? Are civility restrictions a good idea? To what extent is incivility mitigated by circumstances such as baiting or repeated content abuses (POV pushing, original research etc.) by others? (Heimstern)
 * A: Generally, the Arbitration Committee should enforce the civility policy as established by the community. However, I recognize there are often users who contribute tremendously in the content or bot arena, who find it difficult to converse with others. I therefore favor a measured approach. I would want to work with such a user and try and help them through their issues. But, with that said, I would not be happy with egregious conduct following fair warnings about the problem. Essentially people who will not get a clue. If someone will just not get the idea that incivility will not be tolerated then they may need a short break from the project. I would anticipate that happening after second or third chances. Regarding incivility, it can be mitigated, the example of baiting you provide is good example, but it should happen infrequently and on rare occasions. It is important to remember that we are all here to do something we enjoy, we should not be prevented from enjoying our contributions by others incivility. 00:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

(23) How will you attempt to improve ArbCom's efficiency and ensure that cases do not drag on for months? (Offliner)
 * A: As mentioned in my candidate statement, I would advocate for a system like a Court of Appeals, where a small number of judges, in our situation about a third of the committee, are assigned to each case. SirFozzie is advocating something similar. If this approach were adopted, there would be less people required to go through the evidence, and arbitrators could spend more time on their cases or other matters. If the case was somehow significant, then the committee could sit en banc. This would bring cases to a quicker resolution and allow users to return to editing. KnightLago (talk) 02:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(24) How important do you think it is that the community should try to resolve issues before arbcom step in? (Majorly)
 * A: It is very important that the community resolve issues before reaching arbcom. Barring something that has no hope of resolution without arbitration, it is an absolute prerequisite. KnightLago (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

(25) What do you think of the Arbitration Committee's decision to set up Advisory Council on Project Development earlier this summer? If you were one of the founding members of the advisory council, please explain why you accepted the invitation to join the committee. (NuclearWarfare)
 * A: I think the Arbitration Committee overstepped its mandate. It is the community's job to determine its own direction. To establish a committee composed of a select few, based on unknown criteria, smacks of elitism. If the arbitrators have ideas to solve problems they see, or want advice, they should turn to the entire community. KnightLago (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

(26) As of May 2009, only 5 of the 16 Arbitrators had made more than 500 edits to the mainspace in the past calendar year. Several arbitrators' past 500 edits stretched back over 12 months. Considering this, do you feel that the Arbitration Committee is qualified to judge conduct disputes that overlap heavily with content disputes? Please elaborate. (NuclearWarfare)
 * A: Yes, because the editors elected to the committee usually have significant experience across Wikipedia. That experience is the significant factor. If they were lacking experience there would be serious questions regarding their fitness to judge such disputes. As the committee currently stands, and the huge amount of time required, is not unreasonable for their mainspace edits to drop. I found your research interesting by the way. KnightLago (talk) 02:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Specific past examples of ArbCom's decision-making
(27) Do you agree with the committee's decision to reban the_undertow/Law (see motion here)? Would you have handled the situation differently? (Jake Wartenberg)
 * A: Regrettably, yes. He was under an Arbitration Committee ban. While his attempt to appeal disappeared down the Arbitration Committee's memory hole, that did not give him license to start editing again. The fact that a number of people, including administrators and an arbitrator knew, also does not excuse his actions. He should have pursued his appeal until it was heard. KnightLago (talk) 03:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

(28) Why do you think the committee chose to desysop Jennavecia but not Jayron32 (the motion to desysop Jennavecia was passing with all arbitrators having voted when Jennavecia resigned, the motion to desysop Jayron32 had been and was rejected; see the previous link)? How would you have voted? (Jake Wartenberg)
 * A: I think they chose to desysop Jennavecia primarily because of how she acted after the fact. Where Jayron32 was honest about what he did and what he knew, Jennavecia was unrepentant for her actions. I believe if Jennavecia had simply said she made a mistake, and that it would not happen again, she would have received the same strong admonishment. If this was done all over again, and she repeated her same exact actions, minus the inflammatory comments, I would not have voted to desysop. I would simply have admonished her as Jayron32 was admonished. There were too many people who knew of Law's identify but escaped judgment in this case. KnightLago (talk) 03:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

(29) Iridescent and MZMcBride have both publicly admitted that they knew that Law was the_undertow at the time of Law's RfA. While MZMcBride did not vote in Law's RfA, Iridescent did. Noting that Iridescent is currently a user who has the ability to request the admin bit back at WP:BN at any time and that MZMcBride is currently a sysop, what do you think, if anything, should the Arbitration Committee have done? (Jake Wartenberg)
 * A: This entire situation is essentially a case of first impression. As a result, and because he did not vote, I would not have sanctioned MZMcBride. I do not think it is right to sanction someone for something they did not do, when they did not know they were supposed to do it. However, if this situation were to repeat in the future, I would sanction any administrator who knew. Regarding Iridescent, that is a tougher call because they voted. As a former/future administrator I would have held them to a higher standard and sanctioned him or her. As a former/future administrator they had a duty to maintain the trust of the community. In this case they did not do so. KnightLago (talk) 04:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

(30) Out of all the cases handled by the Arbitration Committee in 2009, which one(s) do you think the committee as a whole handled (a) the most successfully, and (b) the least successfully? Please explain your choice(s). (Camaron)
 * A: In reviewing the cases from the past year, I think the most successfully handled one was the Scientology case. It was a high profile case that could have caused Wikipedia strife if not handled professionally. The committee made the right calls and delivered a solid decision. Regarding the least successful, I think the committee has done a pretty good job this year, but I would have to say the Mattisse case, simply because the issues are still ongoing. KnightLago (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

(31) For the purpose of the following five questions, please assume the principles in question are directly relevant to the facts of the case that you are deciding as an arbitrator. Would you support or oppose these principles as written should they be proposed in a case you are deciding, and why? (To keep the amount of time required to respond to these examples to an absolute minimum, I personally would consider one or two sentences to be ample reasoning for the "why" part of this question; that kind of statement length is akin to many of the Arbitrator votes on the proposed decision pages of a case.) (Daniel)
 * (As a point of further clarification, it is entirely unnecessary to read the case these principles were originally decided in — the intent of these questions are to establish your opinion on the general principles that are linked to, while working under the assumption they are directly relevant to a case you are deciding.)

(i) "Private correspondence", July 2007

(ii) "Responsibility", December 2007

(iii) "Perceived legal threats", September 2008

(iv) "Privileged nature of mediation", December 2008

(v) "Outing", June 2009
 * A: I agree with (i) - (iv) and would have voted for those principles. I think (v) needs to be more artfully worded. I understand what the arbitrators were trying to accomplish, but I think they left it too vague, and thus should have fleshed it out more. KnightLago (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

(32) What do you think of the Arbitration Committee's recent decision to appoint MBisanz as a fourth community member – or rather, alternate member with full access and possible voting rights – to the Audit Subcommittee after an election which was to elect three members to the subcommittee? (NuclearWarfare)
 * A: I think MBisanz is a fine editor, but I do not think his appointment was the right decision. If the committee says it is going to elect 3 people, then 3 people should be elected. Otherwise it opens the committee up to questions about favoritism. I note that subcommittee has now decided he will not receive access to the list, or the additional permissions. I think that is the right decision. KnightLago (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Other issues
(33) Originally RfARs were named in the style of "Party X v. Party Y", in line with the idea of two groups in opposition to each other (eg. User:Guanaco versus User:Lir). Later it was changed to naming an individual user (eg. Husnock). Now cases get random names like Highways 2. What naming convention do you believe is the appropriate one for ArbCom to use in designating case names? Under what circumstances should a case name be changed after opening, such as in ? (MBisanz)
 * A: I favor the later two. While the committee's stated goal is to name cases in a random manner, in practice a lot of cases are still named after the primary party. It really depends on the circumstances of the case, but in general this works fine. Names should be changed if it becomes clear that the name of the case does not fit, or if there is a danger that by naming it after a particular party the case overall could be influenced. KnightLago (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

(34) Do you feel that the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach is correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? (NuclearWarfare)
 * A: Absolutely not. I think we have a long way to go in the handling of our BLP articles. Wikipedia's openness and ease of editing leave them highly susceptible to vandalism. As a result, I am in favor of default to delete, liberal semi-protection, and some variant of flagged protections/revisions depending on their ultimate rollout. This of course is up to the community and not the committee, but I think the community is moving in the right direction. WikiProject Living people is an example of this movement. KnightLago (talk) 01:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

(35) Please list all of your accounts, active at any time, and any IP addresses you have made substantive edits from? (Hipocrite)
 * A: I only edit from User:KnightLago, but I created User:Knight Lago to avoid impersonation. I edited from an IP address in early 2006 before starting an account, but I have no idea what it was at this point. KnightLago (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

(36) One issue on which arbitrators (and others participating in cases) frequently disagree is how "strict" versus "lenient" the committee should be toward users who misbehave and need to be sanctioned. Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, as a general matter in the types of cases that tend to lead to split votes among the arbitrators, do you think you would side more with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions, or those who vote for a greater number of bans and desysoppings? Generally, in a given case what factors might lead you to vote for (a) a less severe sanction, or for (b) a long-term ban or a desysopping? (Newyorkbrad)
 * A: I think it would all depend on the circumstances of the case. But I can see myself favoring second chances and other remedies before getting to bans and desysoppings. We all make mistakes sometimes. That being said, I think we lose a lot of valuable contributors to people who are just here to cause DRAMA. I would not favor light sanctions in those cases. As I said above, we are NOT here to placate someone's need for attention. But barring a pattern of negative conduct, I would be erring on the less severe side. KnightLago (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

=Individual questions=
 * Questions asked individually to the candidate may be placed here.

Questions from John Carter
These questions are being asked of all candidates.
 * In limited conversation with past and present arbitrators, they have regularly mentioned the pronounced time demands which being a member of the Arbitration Committee can require, particularly in the difficult or complex cases, on such matters as reading evidence, reviewing behavior of individuals, and discussion of solutions. Do you believe that you will be able to give such matters the time they require?
 * Also, as has been mentioned above, several editors have indicated some arbitrators become less active as regular contributors, either because of the "politics" or because of the demands on time. Do you anticipate being able to continue to function as an active content contributor while an arbitrator?
 * Also, do you anticipate that your exposure to the seamier side of wikipedia might make you less interested in continuing as a content contributor on the conclusion of your ArbCom term?
 * A. I recognize the significant time demands arbitrators face, but I am confident I will have sufficient time to do the business of the committee. Regarding contributions, I personally tend to ebb and flow depending on what interests me. I expect my contributions to the mainspace to decrease some if elected, but I would most certainly continue editing because I enjoy it. Regarding the seamier side, I do not anticipate any changes in my editing. KnightLago (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Kirill Lokshin
Good luck! Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Is the purpose of arbitration to resolve disputes, or to uphold policies and community norms?  To what extent can, or should, the Committee ignore policy if doing so allows a more effective resolution to a particular dispute?
 * 2) How should the desire to be fair to every individual involved in arbitration be balanced with the need to expediently resolve disputes?
 * 3) When presented with groups holding two competing visions of what Wikipedia ought to be, should the Committee strive to maintain a balance of power between the two sides, or espouse one in preference to the other?
 * 4) Should every infraction discovered in the course of an arbitration proceeding be sanctioned?  Why or why not?
 * 5) Why did arbitration decisions shift from individual, targeted sanctions, to general sanctions, and finally to discretionary sanctions?  How did this trend change the editing environment in affected areas, and to what extent have those changes benefitted the project?
 * 6) Are admonishments, reminders, and warnings effective as arbitration remedies?  Why or why not?
 * 7) Is the shift away from informal decision-making and consensus and towards formal procedures and rules of order in the Committee's day-to-day business desirable?  Why or why not?
 * 8) To what extent should individual arbitrators bear collective responsibility for the actions of the Committee as a whole?  Is it acceptable for an arbitrator to undermine a decision he or she disagrees with?
 * 9) Arbitration has been described as mixing the characteristics of adversarial and inquisitorial systems.  To what extent is this correct?  To what extent is this desirable?
 * 10) Over the past several years, a number of cases (notably C68-FM-SV, Date delinking, and Scientology) have taken an extremely long time to resolve.  What are the primary causes of this, and how can they be addressed?
 * 11) Are the main systemic problems with arbitration a result of the Committee's failings, or consequences of the environment in which the Committee functions?


 * 1. The committee's purpose is both to resolve disputes and to uphold policies and community norms. Regarding ignoring policy, only in the most unique of circumstances. So very rarely, if ever. Policies are established by the community after discussion and the formation of consensus. It is not the committee's job to overrule community consensus. I think there would most likely be another option than ignoring policy, and I would strongly consider that before EVER overruling policy. KnightLago (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2. The committee should strive to be fair to all participants. However, that does not mean the committee should delay cases unnecessarily. If a party was given adequate time and warning that the case would be progressing and they failed to respond I would be fine with moving onward. KnightLago (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3. None of the above. It is the committee's job to rule on the merits of a dispute, not maintain the balance of power or adopt one party's view over the other (depending on the case). KnightLago (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4. No. It obviously would depend on the infraction and the case, but the committee could easily find the situation would be better resolved by not sanctioning someone for a minor infraction. Or in the alternative, someone could be subject to a harsher sanction for something else making it unnecessary to sanction them for minor conduct. KnightLago (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5. The decisions evolved due to the types of cases the committee was deciding. Early on the committee dealt with more individuals and their conduct, thus the individual, targeted sanctions. Today, the committee often deals with large disputes, involving many people, concerning broad subjects. Thus the general and discretionary sanctions. KnightLago (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6. Generally. But there are always users who are going to ignore them. That is why it is so important to put together a solid decision. If it is clear a users conduct is not going to change by dealing with them lightly, then the decision has to include a stronger remedy for them. KnightLago (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 7. Yes, but informal decision-making and consensus still occur. The shift toward formal procedures and rules is a result of the number of cases the committee has taken and their complexity. Solid structure is a MUST when you have multiple parties and a case involving complex issues. Otherwise you are left with chaos on the case pages and an environment in which nobody is happy. KnightLago (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 8. Arbitrators are always going to bear collective responsibility for the actions of the committee. It comes with the territory. However, if an arbitrator disagrees with a decision, he or she should dissent and explain their reasoning. Undermining only leads to more conflict both within in the community and the committee itself. KnightLago (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 9. I think that is a fair characterization of the current system. I favor an inquisitorial approach since I believe it would lead to less of a battleground mentality on case pages. A pure adversarial system, on the other hand, would only intensify the dispute as each party would be trying to gain the upper hand. KnightLago (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 10. They have taken a long time due to the number of parties involved, the complexity of the issues, the evidence to be reviewed, and the length of the decision to write and then vote on. As mentioned above, I favor adopting a system like a Court of Appeals, where a smaller number of judges, in our case about a third of the committee, are assigned to each case. This would then cut down on the number of people who have to read through the evidence, and the time to vote on a decision. KnightLago (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 11. I would say it is a mixture of factors. The committee and its structure are not perfect, the environment is often hostile, the community has great expectations of the process, and the parties enter expecting to get what they want and often leave disappointed. Unfortunately, there is no better system that I know of. Therefore, the committee has to continue to evolve and try and resolve some of these issues. KnightLago (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Rschen7754
Note that some of the questions were recycled from 2008, but have been trimmed down. I will evaluate these and a few other characteristics based on a (private) rubric to determine my level of support. Please note that if you are not an administrator, have not been here for a substantial length of time, or have a statement that is not written seriously, this will drastically affect your score.

The first 10 questions are short answer questions. The next question determines your ability to go through evidence. The last question is a bit open-ended.


 * 1) What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Requests for arbitration/Highways 2?
 * 2) Do you believe that WikiProjects can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
 * 3) An editor has made few to no productive edits to articles on Wikipedia. This user has not broken policies per se, but is hard to deal with, giving "smart aleck" remarks, ignoring consensus, ignoring what administrators tell them, etc. What are your views on this situation?
 * 4) There have been editors in the past who have opposed administrators solely for being administrators. To be more specific, a) they oppose on nearly all RFAs, and b) when an administrator's conduct is criticized on ANI, they instantly attack them regardless of the situation. What are your views on this sort of thing?
 * 5) An editor does not have the intelligence required to edit Wikipedia. (Specifically, they not understand English and do not realize that they are messing up things like table syntax, wiki syntax, headings, are adding unsourced things, etc.) What should be done in this situation?
 * 6) Do the circumstances described in questions #3-5 justify a community ban?
 * 7) Explain in your own words what 3RR is and how it should be enforced.
 * 8) When determining if a borderline username is provocative, what criteria do you use?
 * 9) A banned user edits Wikipedia. When should their edits be reverted?
 * 10) During the course of 2009, User:Casliber, User:FT2, User:Kirill Lokshin, and User:Sam Blacketer left the Arbitration Committee. a) Pick one of these editors and explain why they left the Arbitration Committee. b) When the story was made public, do you believe that the editor you chose handled this situation properly in stepping down? Were they forthcoming enough with information?
 * 11) Tell me as much as you can about User:OrangeCounty39. You may refer to any page on the Internet except for other ArbCom candidates' replies to this question.
 * 12) What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?

Thank you. Rschen7754 (T C) 02:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. After reviewing the case I think it took too long. From my understanding it languished on the back burner while other more pressing issues where addressed by the committee. This is obviously not fair to the participants of the case. I believe my proposed restructure of the number of arbitrators on each case could solve problems just like this. KnightLago (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2. No, they cannot enforce standards outright, but they can offer guidance and consensus on best practices. In addition, as a member of WikiProject Universities, I have noticed that WikiProjects provide a valuable place to find knowledgeable editors willing to review articles you have worked on. That is how I got Florida Atlantic University to featured articles status. KnightLago (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3. It is a problem. I would first want to make sure the issue was not simple ignorance of how Wikipedia works. If it was clear that the user understood the problems, and continued using the remarks and ignoring consensus then blocks of increasing duration would be in order for disruption. We are not here to coddle people who refuse to get a CLUE. If we make an honest effort to help someone, and they refuse to listen, then there are other places on the internet where they can spend their time. KnightLago (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4. Regarding voting in opposition on all RFAs, there are differing opinions in the community on whether this is appropriate. It is considered trolling by some, and valid criticism of the system by others. As our Bureaucrats can weigh the support/opposition discussion and disregard comments as they see fit I am fine with it. I am not fine, however, with anyone being attacked. Wikipedia is not a battleground. And we should not be attacking each other simply because we do not like the position someone holds. Instead, if someone has a problem with how something is done they should start a discussion and propose a change. KnightLago (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5. A well-meaning editor, such is what you describe, in this situation should be worked with, and provided guidance in the hopes that they will be able to provide a positive contribution to the project. If all attempts fail, and it becomes clear that there is no hope, then the editor should gently be told that there contributions may best be used on their home wiki, or somewhere else. KnightLago (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6. They might. It would depend on the specifics of each case, and the attempts to solve the problem before the ban. The reality is that a user cannot disrupt the project forever. At some point the community, as well as the editor, need to move on. KnightLago (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 7. 3RR is a line which if crossed shows definitively that a user has been editing warring (barring the exceptions). If edit warring occurs, then the usual sanctions should follow. KnightLago (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 8. It would depend on the precise username, but I would generally start with a discussion on the user's talk page. If we could not come to an agreement on the appropriateness of the name, I would ask for input from others. If consensus found the name to be inappropriate I would request that the user change it and warn them that they would be blocked for violating the username policy if they refused. If the editor refused again, then a block would be appropriate. KnightLago (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 9. As a banned user's editing privileges have been revoked, the banning policy calls for all of their edits to be reverted. However, in practice it is often best to evaluate all of their edits individually, especially in regard to articles, to determine if there is anything worth saving. Blind revision is not productive if they actually did something constructive for the encyclopedia. KnightLago (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 10. Sam Blacketer's resignation is explained fully by the The Signpost here. KnightLago (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 11. No longer a question. KnightLago (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 12. Wikipedia's growth, profile, and size have led to a number of unique problem areas. Those areas include our BLP policies, ethnic and political disputes resulting in on-wiki conflict, determining what consensus is, and the future of Wikipedia itself. KnightLago (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Question from Sandstein
Hi, I have a question related to arbitration enforcement. Recently, another administrator undid one of my arbitration enforcement blocks without discussion, which ArbCom prohibited in 2008. Because a reblock by me would have been wheel-warring, I requested arbitral intervention at. While the Committee appeared to agree that the enforcement was correct and the unblock was wrong, they did not seem inclined to do anything about it until the case became moot days later because the admin was desysopped for unrelated reasons. This has led me to cease AE activity, because I view this non-reaction as a sign that the current ArbCom is not very interested in having its decisions actually enforced. As an arbitrator, what would you have done or advised in this situation? Thanks,  Sandstein   23:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A. AE is a difficult area that requires dedicated and knowledgeable administrators. As you were acting within the rules the committee established you would have had my full support. Unfortunately, in this case it appears the committee took its time and you were left twisting in the wind as a result. The committee should have acted with more haste and restored the block. If the decisions of administrators conducting arbitration enforcement are not supported when good cause is shown, then what is the point of the committee sanctioning parties to begin with? What also is the point of participating in AE? These are questions the committee should consider in the future when dealing with AE actions. KnightLago (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Lar
Note to readers: This is a copy of User:Lar/ACE2009/Questions. These questions were taken from last year and modified to fit changes in circumstance.

Note 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. For those of you that ran last year, feel free to cut and paste last year's answers if you still feel the same way, but some of the questions have changed a bit or expanded.


 * 1) 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 occurrence and 1 year for repeats)
 * d) "WP:Flagged Protection" - the trial we maybe(?) are about to get
 * e) "WP:Flagged Revisions" - the actual real deal, which would (presumably) be liberally applied
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) 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? Does the recent adoption of Secure Poll for some uses change your answer?
 * 2) Please discuss your personal views on Sighted/Flagged revisions. Should we 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?
 * 3) 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 last year 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 last year)
 * 1) 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?
 * 1) A certain editor has been characterised 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?
 * 2) 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. Please state your opinion of Wikback, and of the notion of participating there. Why did Wikback fail? 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?
 * 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?
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * 2) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * 1) A certain editor has been characterised 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?
 * 2) 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. Please state your opinion of Wikback, and of the notion of participating there. Why did Wikback fail? 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?
 * 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?
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * 2) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * 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?
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * 2) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * 2) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)

These are not easy questions. Thanks for your thoughtful answers. ++Lar: t/c 18:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. Wikipedia's approach to BLPs is not correct in all aspects as past high profile incidents of vandalism have shown. Regarding the options, I do not favor opt out. As inclusion standards have been traditionally left to the community, I do not like the idea of an article subject deciding whether or not we cover them. We should tighten our criteria for living persons instead. I favor default to delete. If the community is unable to come to a decision on a BLP after a fair discussion, then that person is not notable enough to be here. I really like liberal semi protection. I would want to work on the time lengths for the first and later occurrences, but beyond that this would be a real tool in the fight against vandalism. I also support flagged protection/revisions, though would want to see how they are ultimately rolled out. KnightLago (talk) 03:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2. It is a question of content, with real implications on policy. I agree that the Arbitration Committee has taken steps that have been viewed as mandating policy. In doing so they ran into some criticism from the community. In order to change our current BLP approach, I would encourage the community to continue to work on our BLP policies, and adopt some of the above changes. As I noted above, BLP work is ongoing at WikiProject Living people. KnightLago (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3. In some sense we have outgrown ourselves. Consensus no longer works for large scale community discussions. There are simply too many people and too many differing viewpoints to be able to come to a singular conclusion. This is not to say that consensus no longer works. It is alive and well in smaller environments, such as in dealing with article content. The road to fixing consensus in the large scale is long and mostly unknown. We could move toward straight voting with Secure Poll as you suggest, but straight voting has its own problems. We could implement some kind of governance to tackle large scale issues, but the community does not favor more bureaucracy. It is a true conundrum. KnightLago (talk) 18:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4. I think Sighted/Flagged revisions is a great idea and we should absolutely implement some form of it. I would not say the community irretrievably failed. I think the community simply failed to reach a consensus due to fear of something new, and the large scale problem discussed above. Regarding the committee, the implementation and scope of this is outside its remit. I do not know why implementation is being delayed. I have heard a number of rumors, but none with enough certainty to repeat here. KnightLago (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5. Yes. Besides being a bedrock principle, there are a number of valid reasons why one would want to remain anonymous. They range from avoiding government persecution, to not having a potential employer examining all of your past edits. As long as users edit constructively, I have no problem with it. If a person has previously disclosed their identity then the bell has essentially been rung. I would support reasonable efforts to help them, such as a rename or oversight in their user space, but not extraordinary measures that would violate our policies. Regarding revealing someone's already revealed identity, it would depend on the situation. If it was clearly done in a malicious manner, and substantial investigation was required, then I would consider it outing. If was done in an innocent manner, and the information was out in the open and easily accessed, then I would not consider it outing. I plan to remain anonymous, and see no problem with committee members doing the same thing. However, I understand and accept my identity could be revealed due to the high profile arbitrators have. I think the WMF could make it clearer that anonymity is not guaranteed and that it is possible to figure out who users are. I think that is generally outside the scope of the committee. Regarding a clear and deliberate outing, I would support a serious sanction. Such conduct is uncalled for. If it occurred off-wiki, there is not much we can do to repair the damage, but the user's conduct can still be addressed. KnightLago (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6. I think the WMF should provide more information about the possible hazards. I am always in favor of more communication, and there is no real downside to making users more aware of potential problems. The WMF should also do what it can to prevent stocking and cooperate with the authorities whenever possible. If it is clear someone's purpose here is to stalk and harass another user that person should be shown the door. Regarding helping a victim of stalking who has an article, we should rigorously enforce our BLP policies. If they are then violated by a stalker, the stalker should be shown the door. Regarding an editee, we should use common sense and try to help them within our policies. Regarding where the line is and the overplaying of the card, unfortunately overplaying occurs, so we need to take each situation on an individual basis. I do not think there is any hard and fast rule on what is stalking. It is one of those things where you know it when you see it. KnightLago (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 7. Banned users are unwelcome, and as you note, policy requires the reversion of all of their edits. However, there are often times when reversion is not in the best interest of the encyclopedia overall. I do not support wholesale reversion because positive contributions can be lost. Instead, I believe a banned user's contributions should be reviewed, and any unproductive edits or comments by said user removed. This continues our mission to build an encyclopedia, while enforcing the spirit, if not the letter of our policy. KnightLago (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 8. It is certainly best if discussion takes place on Wikipedia, but people are free to talk about Wikipedia where they want. I do not have a blog or other vehicle. I think Wikipedia Review is a necessary evil. It provides a forum where people can vent, and express themselves in a manner that would be inappropriate on Wikipedia itself. It also often provides a forum for biting commentary on the daily happenings here, sort of a watching of the watchers. This is not to say I condone the site, but I do not hold it against anyone who participates there. If someone wants to have a Wikipedia Review account that is there business, but we cannot enforce our policies there. I do not have an account on Wikipedia Review. KnightLago (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 9. They can be a problem on occasion, but the community prefers we deal with them through the enforcement of our regular policies. So the best we can do is treat everyone equally and fairly. KnightLago (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 10. Green. It is the color of my eyes. KnightLago (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Avraham
Thank you for stepping forward to volunteer for what I know is a thankless, exhausting, nerve-wracking, emotionally draining, and real-life-affecting position here in EnWiki. For your courage alone, I salute you. I apologize if these questions replicate any above. If they do, please feel free to cut-and-paste your response here. Also, for any question with subquestions, please feel free to answer bthe subquestions only. Thank you very much. -- Avi (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your opinion regarding the current state of administrator desysopping on EnWiki?
 * 2) Should there be more or less controls than are currently in place?
 * 3) Should the final say be in the hands of ArbCom, the community, or somewhere in between (stewards, crats)?
 * 4) How should an emergency desysop (coming from a CU check or other data source, for example, which is affecting a current RfX or XfD) be handled differently than a more "run-of-the-mill" desysop (from a protracted RfAR), or should it?
 * 5) What is your understanding of how the voluntary relinquishment of maintenance tools works with regards to their subsequent return upon request?
 * 6) What is your opinion about the current state of inter-editor behavior, especially with regard to "civility"?
 * 7) What does "civility" mean to you in the context of English Wikipedia?
 * 8) Do you believe that there has been a shift towards more or less "civility" between editors?
 * 9) Do you believe that there exists a class of editors whom for various reasons are "exempt" from civility restrictions?
 * 10) Do you believe that there should be a class of editors whom for various reasons are "exempt" from civility restrictions?
 * 11) Do you believe that there needs to be more or less enforcement of civility on English Wikipedia?
 * 12) If the answer to the above is "Yes", what do you see is ArbCom's role in this matter and how would you go about enhancing Wikipedia in this regard as an arbitrator?
 * 13) What is your opinion regarding Wikipedians "rights," or at least "expectations" to privacy and ano/psuedo-nymity, and what is ArbCom's role in either supporting or adjusting these expectations/rights?
 * 14) Lastly, please list one to three issues that you believe are of primary importance to the ongoing future of wikipedia and how you will contribute to the handling of those issues. Please feel free to copy/paste sections from your nominating statement if you have addressed it there.
 * 1. I think the current method of desysopping, while not perfect, gets the job done. The committee generally serves as a check of sorts to prevent situations in which administrators are punished for making tough decisions. However, I would like to see a fair community based approach that has a check as well. It is logical that if the community grants a right, it should be able to remove it. Regarding emergency desysopping, the situations you describe should be handled in different manners. In one situation immediate harm is occurring, where in the other there is ample time for a case to run. My understanding is that if the relinquisment of the tools is voluntary, and not under any cloud, then a user is free to regain the tools upon their return.

Questions from Piotrus

 * 1) How important is it for an arbitrator to reply to emails from parties and to their messages on arbitrator's own talk page?
 * 2) How important is it for an arbitrator to monitor and participate in discussions on arbitration case's discussion pages?
 * 3) In both my experience, and that of some other editors I talked to, being "grilled" at arbitration for weeks (or months) is "one of the worst experience of one's life" - and it doesn't matter if one is found innocent or guilty afterwards. Do you think that something can be done to make the experience of parties be less stressful?
 * 4) Would you agree or disagree with this mini essay?
 * 5) With regards to your clerking of the EEML case, why is it that all civility warnings / temporary case bans are done by the other clerk (Manning) clerking (sic!) the case, not by you?
 * 6) ArbCom commonly criticizes editors, publishing findings about their failings and remedies to correct them. While nobody disputes this is needed, do you think ArbCom should also try to clarify whether noted failings are exceptional, and accompany critical findings with positive reinforcement, such as here?


 * 1. It depends. Arbitrators have to be wary of private communication directly with participants in cases they are arbitrating. That being said, arbitrators also need to be responsive to the questions of the community and those participating in arbitration. In the case of personal email, I would suggest sending it to the committee's mailing list. That way the entire committee knows what is going on. Talk pages are generally OK, because the community can see the conversation. KnightLago (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2. Communication and monitoring of case pages by members of the committee is essential. As a Clerk I know this from firsthand experience. Parties enter arbitration having been involved in contentious disputes. These disputes tend to devolve once arbitration starts as the parties are trying to prove their case. If they are left alone with no guidance from the committee these disputes go from bad to worse quickly. There is little we can do as Clerks at that point but try and keep the flames down. KnightLago (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3. I think your characterization of the process and qualms with the system are valid. Unfortunately, by the time cases reach arbitration they are generally at a head. People on both sides are upset, and both sides generally believe they are in the right. They then have to endure an arbitration case. As a result, nobody ever leaves happy. As to how to fix the system, I honestly do not know. Many people have tried to come up with a better process, but nobody has succeeded. The only thing to do is make the case run as smoothly and as quickly as possible, and eliminate the DRAMA. KnightLago (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4. I think it is generally on point. KnightLago (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5. That is not necessarily the case. Part of it is that Manning is a phenomenal clerk trainee and I have been giving him a lot of room to work. The other part is that throughout the case we have been discussing everything before either of us took action. This occurred continuously in the beginning and has tapered off as Manning has learned the ropes. We do still discuss things when problems arise and I monitor the case pages on a daily basis. A recent example of our teamwork would be me blocking someone as a result their actions on a case page, and requesting oversight, while Manning enacted a case ban. I anticipate working with Manning soon on implementation notes, and then closing the case. I think everyone wants to wrap EEML up as soon as possible. KnightLago (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel entitled to comment here - As noted I am a clerk trainee under KnightLago's supervision. KnightLago has always been on hand to render assistance and has frequently provided me with excellent guidance behind the scenes. I have at no time felt that support was lacking in any way, and am quite flattered that KnightLago trusted me to operate solo to such an extent. Manning (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6. Absolutely. Arbitration's purpose is not to drive people away, but to resolve disputes and get people back to editing. Positive reinforcement is an ideal way to achieve that purpose. KnightLago (talk) 04:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

IRC Question from Hipocrite
Do you use any of the wikimedia related IRC channels? If you do, will you please permit any logs of your conversations to be posted, in full? Thanks.
 * A. Yes, I am mainly active in the #wikipedia-en-admins and #wikipedia-en-arbcom-clerks channels. No, I will not give blanket permission to post any logs. If someone believes a log contains information that is relevant to this election, or my activities on Wikipedia, it can be forwarded to the arbitration committee or a functionary. KnightLago (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Question from NE2
Have you read War and Peace?
 * A. No. KnightLago (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Question from Smallbones
Jimbo made a policy statement about paid editing. What is your position on Jimbo's continuing (not past) role on policy making? Is paid editing against policy? (I like short answers; I hope you like short questions) Smallbones (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A. Jimbo's future role is up to the community. He essentially serves at the pleasure of the community. If the community decides he can no longer act in the manner in which he has acted in the past I am confident he would stop. Paid editing is fraught with problems and should be avoided. KnightLago (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Vecrumba

 * 1) What specific tenets of conduct do you commit to observe to maintain objectivity and transparency and to deal with issues beyond surface appearances?
 * 2) How do you plan to bring fresh and ameliorating views to conflicts and to avoid viewing those conflicts as merely confirming your prior personal expectations and perspective? That is, to see editors as editors and not through the the labels placed on them? As they are related, please feel free to answer either separately or in tandem. Thank you.
 * A. Regarding objectivity, if there is a chance that my interactions with a party could influence my decision making then I would recuse myself. With 18 arbitrators there will be enough eyes on the case, and there is always other work to be done for the committee. Regarding transparency, I would do as much work in the open as possible. Obviously things that needed to be kept private would remain private, but in a lot of situations the committee seems to default to private when there does not seem to be a compelling need to do so. Regarding below the surface issues, I would do my best to research and get the full background before making any decisions. I would also do my best to give all sides fair consideration. The committee should not be dealing in labels, it should be dealing in facts. If elected, that is what I will be focusing on. KnightLago (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Sarah777
1. A major concern of mine is the use/abuse of WP:CIVIL to silence editors by Admins who are often less than objective or neutral. Have you any concerns about the enforcement of WP:CIVIL?
 * A. Yes. As you mention, if an administrator is not objective or neutral in regard to another user they have no place getting involved. They should instead find an uninvolved administrator, and let that person examine the situation. Instances in which policies are abused also deeply concern me. Administrators knowingly abusing policy are violating the trust of the community and should be sanctioned. KnightLago (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

2. Related to the above; I believe that there is cultural difference in the acceptability of robust and frank language between America and Europe. An illustration of this is the censorship of "bad language" on US television, words which would pass unnoticed on TV in the UK or Ireland for example. How do you react to the charge that US standards of "civility" are being imposed on Wikipedians from places that happily embrace forms of expression that some Americans seem to find "uncivil"? Sarah777 (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A. I think you raise a valid issue. As an Arbitration Clerk it is sometimes difficult to determine on case pages whether a user is being uncivil or just expressing themselves in their normal manner. I think it all depends on the context. So I always try and evaluate the situation from all sides. I do think the US standards are normally applied because the majority of users are from the US. This does not make the application right, but is merely a byproduct of the composition of the community. I encourage everyone to read beyond a user's chosen language and examine the entire situation in order to avoid this issue. KnightLago (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Question from Igny
Hi KnightLago, I am asking the same question I asked Coren, because you seem to know what the EEML case is all about. Basically, I wonder about an alternative Universe where the private archive of the EEML was dismissed by the ArbCom as evidence due to privacy or other concerns. What the best course of action might be for the ArbCom in that Universe then?
 * A. I am not sure there is a whole lot that could be done. The mailing list and the corresponding edits on Wikipedia seem to compose the majority of the evidence. If the list were out due to privacy concerns, then the corresponding edits would likely be out as well. This would leave the committee looking mainly at the limited conduct of the parties without specifics, but knowing that a list existed. The alternative is the committee not accepting the case to begin with due to a lack of evidence. KnightLago (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)