Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Candidates/Kraxler/Questions

Individual questions[edit]

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Questions from EllenCT[edit]

Is an editor's refusal or inability to follow the reliable source criteria a behavior issue within the purview of the Arbitration Committee? Why or why not?
No. Such an editor should have been indef blocked for WP:Incompetence long before ArbCom could ever hear about it.
When an editor is accused of misconduct stemming from subtle behavior issues (i.e., POV pushing instead of e.g. edit warring) surrounding a content dispute, is it ever possible to evaluate their conduct without at least attempting to understand and verify the facts and sources of the underlying content dispute? Why or why not?
How would you handle a group of experienced editors who came before you at arbitration if they had willfully and repeatedly removed some but not all of the conclusions of sources (which they admit are of the highest reliability) because they personally disagree with those particular conclusions, when they do not object to the other conclusions from those sources?
If an editor, when asked to provide an example of what they consider to be a high quality source on a given subject, responds with a source which was sponsored by a commercial organization with a clear conflict of interest, would you expect other editors to refer to that example when other COI issues concerning that editor and the same subject matter arise? Why or why not?

Thank you for your kind consideration of these questions. EllenCT (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom doesn't usually solve content issues. So, I can't see what the purpose of your questions is, concerning the ArbCom election. Would you care to explain? Kraxler (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Rschen7754[edit]

I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide. As a break from past years, I am not assigning "points" for the answers, but the answers to the questions, along with other material that I find in my research, will be what my guide is based on. Also, I may be asking about specific things outside the scope of ArbCom; your answers would be appreciated regardless.

What originally led you to join Wikipedia? What do you do on the site on a day-to-day basis?
I used to read a lot of books and, many times when I tried to get further info on events or persons described in the books, I was astonished to see that there was none to get. Back in 2006 there were about half as many articles as there are now, and many were just one-sentence-stubs. At the same time I was working in an office, and had not much to do. So, I thought it was a good idea to pass the time by adding info to Wikipedia. So, I'm still here, and create articles; clean up badly written, factually incorrect, or malformatted content; keep an eye on the drama boards (which helps me to get aware of a vast variety of guidelines, linked from there); and offer occasionally an opinion at a variety of places.
What is your experience with collaborating and coming to a consensus with editors of different opinions and philosophies? What have you learned from these experiences?
There have been questions or disagreements, mostly about content, sometimes about links or formats, over the times. Most of these problems I manged to solve by talking to the other editors, mostly on my or their talk pages. Sometimes I convinced them that my view was better, sometimes I had to admit that theirs was. I learned from these discussions that a vast majority of all disputes can be solved by "learned debate", no need for drama-mongering. I also learned that a small minority of users is not interested in any debate. They do not, or pretend to not, understand any argument, defend their point of view over again and again although the guidelines say evidently the contrary, and form tag-teams or factions to keep the upper hand at all costs. They suffer usually from WP:Battleground mentality or WP:Incompetence. If elected, I'll see some of them coming before ArbCom. On a day-to-day basis, if getting caught in a (non)-argument with such editors, I eventually ask myself "Does it really harm Wikipedia? Will Wikipedia break down as a result of their view being adopted?" If not, I bow out, and move on.
Case management has been an issue in many elections, with some cases stalling for weeks with little reply, and others coming to a quickly-written proposed decision that received little support from other arbitrators due to concerns about it being one-sided. What is your familiarity with the arbitration process, and how do you believe cases should be handled? Do you plan to propose any reforms in this regard?
Please see my answers to Rich Farmbrough's Q 3, and Carrite's Q 1 and 2. I'm quite familiar with the arbitration process, having read almost all case and amendment files this year. I wouldn't propose any reform of the proceedings. It's not the set of rules which is responsible for the well-working of a decision-making body, it's the people who are members thereof who are. The voters can't elect the wrong people and then complain about it. They either elect "bad" arbs, and live with it (at least until the next election), or they elect "good" arbs, and will get "good" decisions at a reasonable speed.
Several cases in past years have focused on the tension between so-called "subject experts" who know about the intricacies of the subject area and "general editors" who are familiar with the standards that are applied across Wikipedia. What are your thoughts about such issues?
Most "subject experts" will get along with "general editors" when they follow what I described in my answer to your Q 2. Things can be sorted out at the lowest level, except if either the "subject expert" or the "general editor" belong to those small minorities. Many "subject experts" suffer from battleground mentality, not only on-wiki, but in real life too. Some "subject experts" flash their credentials to push their own POV, some add WP:OR and insist that they know about it because they are experts. Some try to explain things in such filigrane detail, that the article becomes unreadable. Some "general editors" have not enough communication skills to try to explain wiki-rules, and/or don't have patience to get along with the "subject expert." Obviously, this will create tension. ANI reports are then filed with the intention to get rid of the opposing side, accusing them of misbehavior, and many times somebody is blocked without solving the original issue. That creates more tension, and the case goes eventually to ArbCom. So, it depends on the arbs what to make of it.
In 2014, the English Wikipedia remains among the few projects (if not the only project) where the process for removal of adminship is not community-driven. What are your thoughts about how adminship is reviewed on this project, and do you think this should be changed, or are you happy with the status quo?
I'm happy with the status quo. There are several hundred active admins on en.wiki, and how many were desysopped by ArbCom last year? Half a dozen? Should every admin live in fear to be desysopped by a factional assault every time they try to mediate between opposing groups of intractable POV pushers, for example? I don't think so. If admins really show bad behavior, or act in disagreement with the rules, ArbCom will see it, and take action.
Serving as a functionary (even more so as an arbitrator) often means dealing with unpleasant issues, including but not limited to helping those dealing with doxing and real-world harassment and communicating with WMF about legal issues. In addition to onwiki and offwiki harassment, functionaries have often had false accusations made against themselves, frequently in venues where they are unable to defend themselves or where the accusers are unwilling to listen to reason. What effects would both of these have on your ability to serve as an arbitrator?
None at all. Unpleasant e-mails don't hurt. False accusations? Well, they're false, aren't they? Harassment? Well, I've got an elephant's hide. "Unwilling to listen to reason"? That happens many times here on Wikipedia, I'm used to it, and have learned to cope with it. "Venues where they are unable to defend themselves"? Now, where should that be? A boxing ring? I admit that I would be lying on the floor in less than 5 seconds. So, I'll try to avoid getting in there.
What is your familiarity with Wikimedia-wide policies, such as the CheckUser policy and the Oversight policy, as well as the Privacy policy? What is your opinion as to how Wikimedia (staff and volunteers) handles private information?
I know about them but, not having the rights to use them, could not claim any familiarity. Also, not being involved with private information, so far, I can't form any opinion.
The purpose of the Arbitration Committee is to provide lasting dispute resolution in difficult cases that the community has difficulty resolving. However, of course Wikimedia is a community-driven project. To that end, what are your views regarding what should be handled by the community, and what should be handled by arbitration?
Arbitration should handle everything that the community is unable to handle. If somebody demonstrates that something now handled by ArbCom could be handled by the community, or that the community has been unable to deal with something, then this task should be transfered to a different decision-making entity. An example is being debated here. It seems to make sense that, if the community can ban users, then the community should be able to unban them too. However, I don't think that stacking the BASC with a different set of people would achieve this goal. It would just redistribute the apparently overwhelming workload on different shoulders, but would not change anything regarding the proceedings. I'd rather propose something new, which may be called RfU (Request for Unbanning), in which a user in good standing nominates some site-banned user for unbanning, and answers on behalf of the banned user (the banned user can not participate for the obvious reason of being site-banned), molded on the RfA. The voters then discuss openly the merits of supporting or opposing to lift the ban, during one week.

Thank you. Rs chen 7754 22:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Gamaliel[edit]

Civility is one of Wikipedia's five pillars. Do you think we have a problem with civility on Wikipedia? Why or why not? Do you think civility can and should be enforced on Wikipedia as vigorously as the other pillars like NPOV are? Why or why not?
No, we don't have a problem with civility on Wikipedia. Some editors are occasionally uncivil, the vast majority remains civil. Many people wouldn't make a big fuss about it, others complain, and these complaints are routinely taken care of by the admin corps.
Wikipedia has a undeniable gender gap in terms of who contributes to Wikipedia and what topics are covered. Do you think this is a significant problem for Wikipedia? Why or why not? What, if anything, can and should the Committee do to address this?
I take it that you mean with "gender gap" the fact that much more man than women write articles, and that there are much fewer articles about women or topics important to women than about men or topics important to men. No, it's not a significant problem. Anybody, independent of gender, may come forward to write articles on any subject, independent of gender too. ArbCom, unfortunately, can do nothing about it. We'll have to leave it to the users. They are all volunteers, nobody can be forced to participate in Wikipedia. If women are not willing to write articles, it may be because they have other interests in real life. That women are underrepresented as bio subjects may be explained by the fact that until the early 20th century they had no political and not many civil rights, which made it difficult to become notable. Content creators who have become aware of the gender gap may, at their own discretion, prefer to write articles on women rather than on men, or adapt their criteria of what to write about, as I did myself. I usually write New York state politicians bios, and the ordinary threshold is either two terms in the Senate, or tenures in both the Assembly and the Senate. However, I wrote bios on all New York women state legislators who hadn't had their article (up to 1966 so far) even if they served only one term in any House. So far, I created Gladys E. Banks, Doris I. Byrne, Edith C. Cheney, Mary A. Gillen, Elizabeth V. Gillette, Elizabeth Hanniford, Gail Hellenbrand, Dorothy Bell Lawrence, Frances K. Marlatt, Dorothy H. Rose, Aileen B. Ryan, Marguerite L. Smith, Genesta M. Strong, Mildred F. Taylor and Maude E. Ten Eyck. 15 women who have jumped into the snake pit of New York politics, and have earned their place in history. Well, compared to the size of Wikipedia, it's a drop in the ocean, but for me it's a question of attitude rather than quantity.

Thanks in advance for your answers. Gamaliel (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Collect[edit]

Can a case be opened without presuming that sanctions will be necessary? Do you feel that once a case is opened that impartial arbitrators will "inevitably" have to impose sanctions?
First question: Yes. Second question: No. It actually happened this year. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC
Do minor sanctions such as limited topic bans require specific findings that each editor named has violated Wikipedia policies or guidelines in that topic area? If an immediately prior WP:AN/I discussion did not show any support for a topic ban, should ArbCom impose one without specific findings of any violation of a policy or guideline?
First question: Yes. Second question: No.
Under what circumstances would you participate in a case where you did not read the workshop and evidence pages carefully?
Under no circumstances.
"Stare decisis" has not been the rule for ArbCom decisions. For general rulings and findings, is this position still valid, or ought people be able to rely on a consistent view of policies and guidelines from case to case?
"Stare decisis" is a sound principle, and saves time on many occasions, all parties knowing what will be the consequences of their actions. However, it presumes that the next case is exactly the same as the previous one, which is not that easy to determine. So, for ArbCom, precedent should be guiding, but can not be binding. Every case should be analyzed according to its own merits. Criticism arises usually from an unexplained departure from precedent; it is up the arbs to explain why they decided different in comparison to a previous case. Obviously it would not really be trust-building if ArbCom reverse themselves every month, seesawing between contradictory decisions.
Is the "Five Pillars" essay of value in weighing principles in future ArbCom cases? Why or why not?
Many cases directly or indirectly involve biographies. How much weight should the committee give to WP:BLP and related policies in weighing principles, findings and decisions?
They should be given enormous weight. WP:BLP is one of the most important policies of Wikipedia. It was established to avoid real-life harm to the subjects of the bios, to avoid that Wikipedia become a battleground for on-line disputes (shitstorms and the like) and to avoid legal battles against Wikipedia. These three things, aside from besing outside the scope of an encyclopedia, if allowed, would actually destroy Wikipedia.
How would you personally define a "faction" in terms of Wikipedia editors? Is the behaviour of "factions" intrinsically a problem, or are the current policies sufficient to prevent any faction from improperly controlling the tenor of a Wikipedia article? If the committee determines that a "faction" rather than an individual editor is at fault in a behaviour issue, how would you suggest handling such a finding?
A "faction" is a group of editors who make a joint effort to push their side in a dispute. Yes, the behavior of factions is a problem, since in most disputes outside observers tend to evaluate not the arguments but the numbers of editors who defend each side. In theory, in many places (like AfD, DR, Mediation) the policies say to weigh the arguments and not the numbers, but in practice the results are many times somewhat shortcoming, for a variety of reasons. In behavior issues, it should be difficult to determine that a faction is at fault. It could be possible that various editors belong to a faction, but misconduct should be proven against any such member of a faction individually.

Thank you Collect (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Gerda Arendt[edit]

We met last year and can be brief: imagine you are an arb, how would you comment in this case? My so far favourite comment has four words ;)
In this case (the Nikkimaria/Pigsonthewing controversy of July 2014) I agree with the actual outcome, i.e. case dismissed. Apparently the remedies enacted in the Infobox case have given rise to repeated claims and counterclaims of violations, and repeated petitions for amendments. That in itself is somewhat contrary to the spirit of ArbCom's purpose which is believed to be the solution of problems, and not their perpetuation. My personal opinion ("if I was an Arb") on one of the previous requests for amendment, I told you already some time ago.

Questions from Rich Farmbrough[edit]

Arbitrators do not make policy. How would you handle sweeping remedies which amount to policy change, for example the one that puts all BLP pages and LP mentions under discretionary sanctions?
Arbitrators need a lot of time to do justice to a complex case, with request, evidence, workshop, talk pages, propose decisions, and talk pages all comprising maybe hundreds or thousands of diffs, and up to the equivalent of a short novel of text, not to mention email evidence and discussion, "the other Wiki" and background research. Do you have the time to conscientiously work on these sorts of case?
Yes. My content work would possibly suffer a bit but, if I get elected, I'll make that sacrifice.
Because of the workload of Arbitration cases, it has been suggested that they should, in general, be heard by 5 or 7 of the active arbitrators, possibly with one "spare". Would you support a solution like this?
No, that wouldn't make much sense. Watching this years cases, you see that many arbitrators only take part in cases infrequently, so de facto most cases are decided by a bare quorum of arbs. To lessen the number of arbs required for a decision could make the results becoming somewhat lopsided, depending on who got this case assigned. See, for example, the motions in this case. Depending on the subset of arbs chosen for this case, the result of the vote could have been the opposite. That would defeat the purpose of electing 16 people. If they don't have the time for the workload, they should not run. But once elected, all of them should be allowed to participate in the decision-making of all cases. This issue is currently discussed here. Some argue that by creating the smaller subcommittees the decision-making would be sped up. That might or might not prove to be true, if tested sometime, but speed is not the main requirement of ArbCom decisions. The lasting solution of the problem is. By the time a case comes to ArbCom, and is accepted, the problem has been going on for some time, weeks, months, if not years (like the open case on Dangerous Panda which cites events from 2012), and it's not like utmost urgency is now required to solve things in five minutes.
Arbitrators need a lot of patience. I was very worried when one Arbitrator said on-wiki he had difficulty keeping his temper. Do you think you have the patience this role requires?
Yes. For example see this discussion with one user who had previously been blocked for battleground behavior, and another who got his AWB accees removed for WP:Incompetence. I stay calm and remain civil throughout.
Arbitrators need to be impartial and be seen to be impartial. If you became an arbitrator would you announce your opinion of the outcome of a case, or of an involved party at the request stage? Do you think Arbitrators should have the power to add any party they like to a case?
First question: At the request stage an arb should accept, decline or recuse a case. It may be necessary to discuss certain points which are needed to make up one's mind which one of these options to choose. An opinion on the possible outcome would be in order as a rationale why to decline. Such an opinion should not be given if the case is accepted. Second question: No sensible arb would add "any party they like" to a case. You might want to ask me whether an arb should have the power to add any party that is, or seems to be, involved in the case.
The Committee must also be seen to be impartial as a whole. If you were elected would you be willing to waive your right to bring cases for the duration of your office? If not why not?
As an Arbitrator you would have access to the Checkuser right. As well as the obvious responsibility of access to private information, the right brings the power (if you have the block bit) to make effectively non-overturnable blocks, by simply labelling them as "checkuser blocks". This is because a block can be based on private information not available to mere administrators. A significant number of checkusers have used this privilege without any private information being relevant. Do you consider this something that you would do or condone, and why?
The purpose of the Committee is to resolve disruptive disputes which the community cannot. On ex-Arbitrator commented that "it is not about justice and fairness". Do you agree or disagree with this sentiment, to what extent and why?

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC).

Questions from Everyking[edit]

How do you feel about the ArbCom's practice of deciding cases through private deliberation? Would you push for greater transparency, up to the point of holding all discussions on-wiki, so long as sensitive personal information is not revealed? Would you be prepared to make a personal pledge to make all of your own comments in public, unless sensitive personal information is involved?
All judicial bodies of the World deliberate in private. Just a few examples: In a jury trial, after the case is closed, the jury goes to the jury room, and deliberates to find a verdict, behind closed doors. In the U.S. Supreme Court, arguments are heard in open court, and some months later the Justices come up with a written decision, arrived at by private deliberations. I can't see any need for Wikipedia ArbCom to re-invent the wheel. Here, evidence is presented on-wiki, decisions are proposed on-wiki at the workshop, and sometimes discussed there too. So there is already a more open kind of deliberations going on here than anywhere else. As to ban appeals, they are deliberated off-wiki for the obvious reason that the apellants are site-banned, and couldn't debate on-wiki anyway. I proposed a change to that in my answer to Rschen7754's Q 8. But, no, I won't make any "personal pledge to make all of my comments in public", what needs to be discussed off-wiki, will stay there.
Everyking (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Carrite[edit]

If you were assigning a letter grade to Arbcom for its work in 2014, what would that grade be? What was the committee's greatest success and their worst mistake?
Well, "if I would" I would, but I won't. I'm not one of those who think that bashing or lauding the arbs will make any difference. Anybody who thinks that the current members are not up to the task should vote for a different kind of arbs at this elections. Those who think that the current arbs are doing well should elect the same type of arbs this time. Although the arbs should be trusted by the community, they are not supposed to play for the audience, but to come to a well founded and lasting decision, under the guidelines and common sense. I do not agree with some decisions of the present ArbCom, but I think "greatest success" and "worst mistake" are inappropriate concepts here.
The Arbcom process is slow, generally running nearly 6 weeks from first case request to final decision. What can be done to speed up this process?
The speed depends on how much time the volunteers who sit on ArbCom are willing and able to spend looking into these cases. First, there's ample time given to users to present evidence, and then to propose decisions at the workshop. Then the decisions need to be thought about, and different people need a different span of time to make up their minds. An average 6 weeks doesn't sound like "slow", and I don't think it is necessary to forcibly speed up things. See also my answer to Rich Farmbrough's Q 3.
If you could change one thing about Wikipedia, what would it be?
Wikipedia is not a fairy tale where a djinn appears and tells you that you have one or three wishes which he would fulfil. The one thing I change every day is the lack of info/articles at Wikipedia. There are still lots of subjects not covered, and I write one article per day, on average.

Thank you for your answers. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Dennis Brown[edit]

Without naming names, what skills or qualities do you have that are unique, that might not be present in the current Arbs or candidates? What makes you stand out?
All current arbs are admins, although adminship is not required for eligibility. On the other side, adminship is often compared to the job of a janitor, hence the expression "to get the mop". So why should the top decision-making body of an institution be composed exclusively of janitors? Why not take on a different type of collaborator?

Assuming you are elected at Arb, what role do you expect to play as part of that committee?
I expect to play the role of one member of a 15-member decision-making board.

What have you done at Wikipedia that you think makes you particularly suitable for the position of Arb?
I'm not aware that any of the sitting or previous arbs had done anything particular prior to being elected that made them "particularly suitable" for the position of Arb. They ran, and were elected, apparently chosen by the voters who evaluated their overall track record and possibly the answers to these questions.

Question(s) from Worm That Turned[edit]

Hi, Kraxler. Last year, I asked you if you'd thought much about the "dark side" of being an arbitrator and how had you prepared. It was an interesting answer you provided, basically saying you weren't afraid. You will be . Has anything changed in the past year on that subject?
No. Please see also my answer to Rschen7754's Q 6.
In addition - what do you believe has changed since last year that would make you a better candidate to be an arbitrator?
During the last year I've been watching the ArbCom proceedings more closely than before, so I've become much more familiar with what's going on there. Aside from that I'm as good a candidate this time as I was last year. My commitment to the project and my judgment haven't oscillated either way.

Thanks for answering. Best of luck. Worm^TT(talk) 09:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Tryptofish[edit]

What is your opinion of User:Tryptofish/Draft B for ArbCom, in terms of transparency, privacy, and whether it should become part of ArbCom procedures? Thanks!
Looks much better than your drafts last year. The table looks good and is easy to read. The contents seem to make sense. Submit it as an amendment and, after discussion, it should have a good chance to be enacted.

Question from Carcharoth[edit]

Please take a look at a set of questions I wrote four years ago, based on my first term as an arbitrator. Please pick and answer one or more questions from that list. Provide as much reasoning as needed to allow the electorate to judge how you would respond to these and similar situations you will probably encounter if elected.
See below

Parties to cases post repeatedly to your talk page, and/or e-mail you and/or the mailing list - (Harej)
- I read all of it. I can take quite a few pages per day.
Real life intervenes while you are halfway through voting on a case and you don't know when you will be able to continue - (Georgewilliamherbert)
- I pray for divine intervention. In the meanwhile, either the case is finished without my vote, provided there's a quorum, or everybody will have to wait. I don't expect anything like that to happen. I have a lot of leisure time, and my real life is sometimes a bit busy, but never out of control.
Poorly assembled ban appeals arrive at the mailing list and will require work to sort out - (Off2riorob)
- I start sorting it out.
Banned sockmaster consistently denies socking and refuses to take no for an answer - (unassigned)
- Yawn.
You sense you are very tired/ill or not fully alert, but voting needs to be done - (unassigned)
- Sleeping over it improves productivity by about 300%. Good night.
Voting on a remedy to ban someone is deadlocked and you have the casting vote - (Jclemens)
- I keep calm, analyze the evidence, ponder the pros and cons, and vote according to the requirements of the case and the best interests of Wikipedia. And write a rationale explaining why. In detail. Lasting solutions are those accepted even by the losing party, if there is one.
You are trying to do some work on articles and someone pesters you about arbitration matters - (Iridescent)
- I stave the pesterer off, gently, and look into the arbitration matters as soon as possible.
After several months of intense arbitration work, you begin to hallucinate that you are God - (asked Jesus)}}
- That can't very well be. According to the scenario depicted by WormThat Turned, after several months of intense arbitration work one should rather hallucinate that one's being cooked alive by the devil. So, I'm anxious now to find out whether Arbs go to heaven or to hell, in the end. Cheers

Questions from Bazonka[edit]

Wikipedia is largely an on-line community, and some editors prefer their activities to remain entirely on-line. However, other Wikipedians engage in off-line, real world Wikipedia activities, such as Wikimeets, outreach work, or training. How much are you currently involved in these off-line activities, and would this be different if you were or were not on the Arbitration Committee?
No off-wiki activity, so far, sorry, and I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.
One of the Arbcom candidates is standing on a pro-pie policy. Whilst you may find that to be a flippant approach, many editors do appreciate pie. What is your favourite kind of pie?
Magpie.

Questions from Fæ[edit]

I'm having difficulty visualizing how Arbcom today represents the diversity of our community. Would you like to identify yourself as a woman or LGBT, and explain what life experience and values you would bring to the committee when these become topics or a locus of dispute?
I have already, in my nomination statement, identified as a grandfather. Sorry, but I respectfully decline to talk about my life. All I can say is that I'm neither homophobic, nor misogynic.