Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/Alexia Death/Questions for the candidate

Questions from east718

1. Do you feel that the Arbitration Committee takes too long to close cases? Or do you feel that they act too hastily and some important facets of cases occasionally fall through the cracks? Either way, what will you do to remedy it?
2. Can you give some examples of proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies on voting subpages that you disagree with? How about some proposals that actually passed? If you consider any completed arbitration cases to be failures in their intent, scope, or remedy, could you please name them and your reasoning why?

Thanks, east.718 at 07:31, 11/14/2007

Thank you for your questions.

Reply:

1. I think the time it takes for ArbCom to deliberate is quite reasonable, witch I believe is around a month and half. A shorter time frame would cause problems in presenting the case for the participants, longer would tie editors up in proceedings more than needed.
2. There are no complete failures to list, they have all influenced the people involved, but they all fail at one crucial point, finding and applying a fix to the circumstances that allowed these situations to develop. I generally agree with findings of fact, however I disagree with certain remedies. Total communication restrictions between editors benefit nobody(example:Commodore_Sloat-Biophys#Remedies ), they only hamper working together. A good solution is a general restriction and a proposed policy that continued accusing and hostile communication between editors after a decision is passed is counted uncivil and penalized by short term blocks. Another type of remedies I disagree with are long term blocks on active contributing editors with active participation in other areas than the area of conflict. A short term block and a probation serves the community interest much better.--Alexia Death the Grey 08:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Heimstern

My questions are kind of nitty-gritty, but I'm not looking for really specific answers as much as trying to see your thought process and approaches to the issues.

1. What is your philosophy on how to handle edit warriors? Under what circumstances should the Committee ban users who continually edit war, and when should they use lesser sanctions, such as paroles or editing restrictions? What factors should the Committee consider in deciding what sanctions are appropriate?

2. What about uncivil editors (including those making personal attacks)? What factors should the Committee consider in deciding whether and how to sanction them?

3. When should an administrator be desysopped? In particular, how should a sysop's failings be weighed against his or her useful administrative actions, and when do the failings merit removal of adminship? When, if ever, is it appropriate to use a temporary suspension, such as was used in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson?

4. Under what circumstances should the Committee consider an appeal of a community ban?

5. Two recent cases, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone, were dismissed with no decision made after the Committee had been unable to come to a decision concerning wrongdoing or sanctions. In both cases, the arbitrators seem to have felt that the cases' issues were no longer current, either because the community had resolved the issue or because a participant was no longer active at Wikipedia. Now, consider a similar situation in which the Committee cannot agree on finding concerning user conduct or on appropriate sanctions, but in which the case issues are clearly current. What should be done in such a case?

Thanks for your consideration. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for asking.

1. Edit waring is a complex issue. Often(in my experience that can even be most) disputes in editing lead to better articles. Edit waring happens when a person is strongly motivated to contribute but as a side effect also tends to be biased. I believe that edit warriors need to be made clear that they must seek consensus before unilateral action. For that short term blocks, 1week-1 month, depending on severity of the case for anyone with more than 1 3RR block in the past 3 months, are in my mind best solution.
2. If civility issues get to ArbCom its hopelessly late to fix them. The damage is already done. This needs to be handled at grass root level with an actually enforceable process for handling WP:CIVIL complaints and developing a consensus what is and is not civil. At ArbCom however, patterns and history should be considered. If a user has a prior warning about civility issues and the same concerns keep coming again and again, then another warning will make the whole policy look useless and invalid. There is only one permanent record on Wikipedia. Its the block log. For civility issues, shock blocks parole for a time depending on the severity of the issues, 2-48 hours, is appropriate and if the block long is getting to be stretched way too much with these, then there should not be a problem for obtaining a community block for that user.
3. Desysoping depends very much on the transgressions found. Acting as an admin in conflict of interest situation and displaying clear personal dislike and bias in admin actions against members of a race, nationality or religion always warrant desysoping. Civility and communication failures may warrant a suspension or only in severest cases desysoping. My firm belief is that no prior good deeds should be counted, only the severity of the transgressions. You would not agree to a law that said that donating graciously gives you "get out of jail free" card for one murder would you?
4. Only if the community ban seems to be based on incomplete or false assumption of consensus, ie has too few opinions, has been subjected to extensive canvassing and/or puppet theater.--Alexia Death the Grey 07:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
5. I believe that a general restriction in the area of dispute works best. Actual civility enforcement along with general disruption probation on articles connected with the issue. This should prevent further issues with the topic.

--Alexia Death the Grey 07:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Ultraexactzz

Best wishes in your candidacy, and in your tenure on the committee should you be elected. I'm asking this question to most of the candidates, so I apologize in advance if you've already answered a similar question from another editor.

Some background. I was an avid reader of the encyclopedia until December 2005, when I decided to begin editing. I had started to delve into the workings of the project, reading about AfD's and the ANI and, most interestingly, the work of the Arbitration Committee. When elections came around in December 2005/January 2006, I thought that a fresh perspective might be of value to the committee. So, in my haste to pitch in, I made my 13th edit (!) by nominating myself to the Arbitration Committee.

Needless to say, it did not go well.

However, I did find some editors who supported my candidacy on moral grounds, offering encouragement and concuring that a different perspective was of value in the committee's work. Looking back, it got me thinking, as this round of elections begins: What is the most valuable trait for an arbitrator? Your statement and answers to other questions will address this at length, I'm sure, but if you had to distill the essence of being an effective arbitrator into one word, what would that word be? ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for you shared experience and question.

The trait I value most, and wish to offer to the ArbCom, is the ability to analyze the situation, find the causes and fix the problem once and for all while keeping harm to the project to minimum. If I had to put it into one word, that would be "Why?", fixing the symptoms does not cure the disease, the cause must be understood and corrected before a fix has a chance to hold.

--Alexia Death the Grey 08:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Jehochman

How much of a problem are nationalistic editors who try to promote a specific political view? What should be done, if anything, to reduce the number of edit wars surrounding the articles in Eastern Europe? - Jehochman ^Talk 23:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your question.

Editors themselves are not the problem and displaying a view as such is not a problem either. Generating disruption by trying to exclude other views or represent a minority view as the majority one and ignoring the civility policies are problems that need to be dealt with. Enforced adherence to WP:CIVIL and backing disputes and tagging decisons with reliable sources will take the edge of the disputes. There will always be edit wars in disputed topics, but if the above principles are followed they will bring more balanced articles and will no longer be disruptive.--Alexia Death the Grey 08:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Ragesoss

In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?---- ragesoss (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the question.

These terms are totally different from each other. From different class even. Scientific POV is a POV, Neutral POV represents neutral presentation of all notabe of POVs without undue weight. Granted, very often the only really notable POV is the Scientific one, and all others deserve a brief mention, but only if they have noteworthy following.

--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 10:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from jd2718

1. A relatively large chunk of your rather brief editing experience has been involved in Estonia-Soviet or Estonia-Russian edit conflicts, including a trip to ArbCom. Have you tried your hand at editing non-conflicted articles to get a sense of what healthy editor collaboration may look like?

I have contributed a little here and there else where as well, but my best experiences with healthy collaboration are from the same contentious areas. There are people involved in those topics who are quite reasonable and willing to collaborate even if there is a disagreement. PS: Ive corrected your spelling of Estonia...

1. An unfortunately high proportion of ArbCom cases involve national conflict. If someone involved in your recent case were again at ArbCom, would you be able to set aside your feelings from the previous case? Would you be able to enforce the provisions of an ArbCom case against people you edited closely with?

I disagree that the conflicts are national. The tend to be more ideological but the borders of ideology tend to overlap with nationality. Either way, if it was a close editor of mine, I would not participate in the case as an arbitrator. Neither I not that person need the shadow of preference treatment over the ruling. If it came to enforcement however, I would not have any problems with it. Rulings that are not enforced undermine authority, and that is not acceptable.

1. Can you describe the sanctions imposed in Digwuren? Besides your warning, do any of the editing restrictions affect you? Jd2718 (talk) 04:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

In the case of Digwurren, two editors were banned for a year, a decision I do not agree with on both accounts, and have stated the reasons for that above. The decision that I wholeheartedly agree with is a general restriction of no vague accusations and incivility with actual promise of enforcement. It was something I had hoped for when I asked the ArbCom to take the case and it has calmed the debated topics down a fair bit. The restriction influences my activities minimally, I'm never intentionally uncivil or making vague acusations anyway... Perhaps I just read my comments a bit more carefully for anything that somebody might read into the wrong way.

Thanks for your questions, Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 11:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Points of View: When does including "notable" points of view become problematic for NPOV?

When I first came on to Wikipedia a year and a half ago the project was more centered around "Just the facts" - articles were more crafted around the who, the what, the when and the where, with some emphasis on the why. Of late, the why has taken on a dominant role in articles on contentious issues, with each side in the political spectrum putting forth their own "notable" mouthpiece to spin what the who, the what, the when and the where means. Do you think this is a positive development? Do you think this is educational, or do you think it makes Wikipedia another platform for the dichotomized public debate--that there are two sides to every issues, and two views--that is prevalent in American society?--David Shankbone 18:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

A little background is needed to understand the conflict but in some cases, while the topic is hot, the contentious whys over run everything else. As the debate cools down the articles are gradually cleaned up and return to normal with whys separated to their own pages or deleted. It is the nature of Wikipedia. I doubt there is anything that can be done about it without turning wikipedia back to nupedia. These contentious debates need uninvolved admins to keep order and maintain some sense of reality, but as these are heated conflicts it's ungrateful work. Both sides will hate any neutral face trying to keep order and will proclaim it loudly. So showing a little of the ugly underside is important for contex. But it must be kept in check.

Thank you for your question, the only wikipedia I know is the Neutral POV one, I have never thought about a No POV wikipedia... I loved thinking about it... --Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 11:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from I

1. What, if anything, do you believe is wrong with the current arbitration process, and/or the committe? This includes anything related to the committee and its actions. If appointed, what do you intend to do to resolve these issues? I (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Wanderer57

Based on ‘Request for comment on user conduct’ processes that you have followed closely, how would you rate them in terms of fairness to the accused?

(Just to be clear. Some candidates wondered if my question was "aimed at them". I'm asking all candidates the same generic question; it is not aimed at anyone.)

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Piotrus

1. Do you think an arbitrator should be active in all cases he has no conflict or interests in?

No, The load would be too big. If people too many things at a time they wont do any of them properly.

1. If the arbitrator is active, should he be expected to comment in workshop / arbcom discussion pages?

Yes, participation in the WHOLE process is very important and sadly neglected.

1. Do you think some editors should be more equal than others? I.e. should incivility of experienced editor - one who registered years ago and wrote or contributed to many articles - be treated differently from incivility of a relative newcomer?

No, this differentiation is the root of most problems on Wikipedia. Its like allowing a person to walk free after murdering someone if they have donated large sums of money for cancer research. If anything, transgresions of old-timers would need to be ALWAYS noted as they are expected to know better.

1. How can WP:CIV and similar issues be enforced? Should they be enforced as efficient as 3RR?

WP:CIV is a subjective matter and as such must be handled differently. A consensus must be formed on what is and is not civil and penalties deducted from that. It cannot be the jugement of one person, the one that feels offended and the blocking admin.

-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from AniMate

Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution. However, first and foremost, we are here to work on an encyclopedia. Editing and adding to the project should be everyone's first priority. Can you point out some of your recent mainspace contributions that you are most proud of? AniMate 11:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the kind of contributor to make big articles. But I do like participating in consensus building. Anything I'm proud of? Estonian National Awakening comes pretty close.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 11:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from Cla68

So that it won't look like I'm targeting anyone in particular, I'm asking this question of all the candidates. Were you a recipient on the email list used by Durova to distribute her evidence used to wrongfully block !! as detailed in this ArbCom case? Cla68 (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No. I was not aware of the case until yesterday in fact.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Rschen7754

1. What are your views regarding debates such as WP:RFAR/HWY and WP:SRNC? (In terms of dispute resolution).

Debates are debates. They must happen so a consensus can be found. --Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 11:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

1. a) What is the purpose of a WikiProject? Do you believe that WikiProjects b) own articles or c) can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?

Enforcing standards is needed to ensure usability. Standards enforcement is not claiming ownership in my mind.

1. Do you believe that parent WikiProjects have the right to impose standards (such as article layout) on child WikiProjects? (Case in point: WP:USRD and its state highway projects)

Yes. The uniform look in the end benefit the user.

1. a) What is your definition of canvassing? b) Does it include project newsletters or IRC?

Canvassing is going to your "clique" and drafting meat puppets. If numbers would not matter in content dispute like they do now due to 3RR it would not be a problem. Conversing with people who are already involved in the subjects is not in my mind canvassing, regardless of the medium.

1. a) In terms of vandalism and good faith but horrible edits, where do you draw the line? (scenario: an editor makes a mess of articles that cannot easily be fixed). b) Should blocks, protects, and / or rollbacks be in order?

A rollback may be in order, but not blocks, locks or any penalization, unless its a repeated issue. Perhaps a quick lecture on what not to do but no more. If this keeps happening after that, then some restrictions are needed as preventative measure.

Thank you. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for questions. --Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 11:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Sander Säde

1. You - as probably all other involved editors - did not agree with ArbCom's decision in Digwuren's case. It is now obvious that the decision addressed only symptoms and not the cause (see the new Anonimu ArbCom case) and was overall pretty useless. What do you think would have been a better solution - and how do you propose to address the cause instead of symptoms?

I agree with the general restriction decision on that particular case. However decisions are nothing without enforcement and arbcom enforcement is nonexistent.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 11:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

1. How much more active should arbitrators be in workshop and proposed decision discussions? In my opinion, Digwuren's case was fouled mostly because of the inactivity of arbitrators in those areas (it seems that some arbitrators did not read even the whole evidence, not to mention those two pages).

Delving into issues is very important. There can be no better decisions untill arbcom member take a more active role in deliberations.

1. Do you think that ArbCom should rule also on content disputes? As of now, many cases are about content disputes that have gone to the point where editors start throwing incivilities around. Might that be avoided by ArbCom ruling in earlier stage?

ArbCom by nature is not a ruling entity for content disputes, but Wikipedia DOES need a mechanism to rule on content matters.

1. Will you become more active on Wikipedia if you get elected?

I think my withdrawal has answered that:)....

Thank you. -- Sander Säde 17:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the questions :) --Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 11:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from Risker

There is currently a proposal at the Village Pump (Policy) that policies be protected from free editing[1]. Amongst the reasons for this suggestion is to prevent parties from revising policy in a way that favours their point of view, to prevent edit wars on active policies, and to maintain a stable policy base so that users can rest assured that they are staying within policy. Do you believe that this is a good course of action for the encyclopedia? Please respond from your perspective as a prospective member of Arbcom who would be responsible for interpreting policy (but feel free to add your opinion as an editor as well). I will be asking this question of all candidates. Thank you. Risker (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I would support this decision. Approved policies suffer from a lot of vandalism and biased edits. Policies would not be locked down, they would just need an admin if a new consensus is found.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from Blue Tie

1. Can/should Arbcom create wikipedia policy? Or develop a proposed policy for community vote?

It should develop policies for community vote. This is exactly what Ive been talking about when I say that currently all Arbcom does is make quick patches in stead of finding solutions.

2. Do you intend to help create or propose wikipedia policy as an Arbcom member?

I have created two essays as is that have the makings of a proposed policy. If I hand not withrawn and would have been elected, then certainly.

--Blue Tie 13:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for questions.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 12:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Question by JetLover

1. You have been here for only six months. Do you believe this is enough experience for an arbitrator? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes six of intense activity months can give more experience than several years of taking it easy. But this question seems irrelevant in the context of my withdrawal...

Thanks for your question.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 12:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Mrs.EasterBunny

As a member of ArbCom, would you place more emphasis on content or behavior? For example, in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds case, there is voluminous discussion on whether SevenofDiamonds is really MONGO, but no discussion on what got MONGO banned in the first place. If SevenofDiamonds=MONGO, then this is a behavioral problem but doesn't have to be a content problem. If SevenofDiamonds edit was reasonable (I have not researched it) would it make a difference?Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that sock accusations are abused on Wikipedia. Since it is impossible to be 100% sure, any sock accusations should be banned and all users judged and slapped according to their edits, not some obscure accociation. Thanks for asking this--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 12:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

————————————

This is it. Thanks for asking everybody. :) --Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 12:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)