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

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

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?
 * All edit warriors can change if given the chance. Lesser sanctions can be handed out if it is a first offense, such as a rule that they can only revert one page a week/day. The committee must consider main space edits, good ones, a light block, bad ones, spam or vandalism, a ban, or long term block.

2. What about uncivil editors (including those making personal attacks)? What factors should the Committee consider in deciding whether and how to sanction them?
 * Uncivil editors, including those making personal attacks, should be given bans, or blocks, if they have been sufficiently warned. On a lower level, a personal attack, or threat to sue/get a lawyer/attorney involved warrants either a Level 4im warning, or a block, not a ban. Again, main space edits, as above.

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 Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson?
 * An admin should be desysopped if they have totally betrayed the community's trust. Such as this . It is, in some circumstances allowed for a temporary desysop, as above in the question, but I would prefer a desysopping, and perhaps a month later a new RFA.

4. Under what circumstances should the Committee consider an appeal of a community ban?
 * The committee should strive to never override a community ban, unless the community decides that the user is fit to edit again. The only time the committee should override the community is if they have extremely good reasons, like Jimbo suggests it, with a "tone" of the "just do it" nature.

5. Two recent cases, Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid and 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?
 * If the committee cannot find a consensus on it, the parties are active, the committee needs to look over all of the evidence of misconduct or whatever else is there, and a good discussion, as to why people are voting the way that they are.

Thanks for your consideration. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope that my answers are satisfactory.  Dreamy   §  13:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Addhoc
Could you provide links to your MedCab cases? Thanks! Addhoc 00:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, here they are:


 * User:Dreamafter/Mediation/Answer/Summaries/Final
 * User:Dreamafter/Mediation/Answer/Summaries
 * User:Dreamafter/Mediation/Answer
 * User:Dreamafter/Mediation
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-24 Birmingham pub bombings

N.B.: this one is still empty as I am continuing to work on the case.  Dreamy   §  13:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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?
 * Well, it can swing both ways, I will try to make sure that the information presented is as plain as the back of my hand. I will also try to get my vote out, and answer why I have voted the way that I have.


 * 1) What have you taken from your experiences with MedCom that you feel will affect your duties as an arbitrator?
 * I have never worked with the MedCom, I have worked with the MedCabal... but none of what I have done should negatively affect my duties as an arbitrator. For the positive way of looking at it, it gave me a good look at the way things can be done.

Thanks, east. 718 at 01:14, 11/2/2007


 * Hope that answers your questions.  Dreamy   §  13:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My bad on the MedCom/MedCab slip up. Thanks for the answers! east. 718 at 05:20, 11/3/2007

Question from xaosflux

 * 1) As functions assigned by ArbCom, describe your view on the assignments of Oversight and Checkuser permissions, including thresholds for (or even the possibility of) new applicants.
 * Well, I agree that a checkuser and on oversighter must have a high degree of maturity, so as not to, lets say, hide every diff on USA. So an 18 year old that has been accepted as totally mature, and can prove that they are 18, should be given it if it is required. A new applicant must provide reasons for wanting the tools, and as above, provide proof of age. New applicants should be welcome, but they shouldn't get there hopes up, as it is a very limited position, whichever position they want.

Thank you, — xaosflux  Talk 01:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC) (Note:Generic question for all candidates, other candidates are WELCOME to copy this question in to their subpages)


 * I hope that that answers you question.  Dreamy   §  13:35, 2 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?
 * The fairness to the accused to the ones that I have followed, seems to be a little on the "Oh my god he made a mistake, get him!" side, but I think that as it is the way of dispute resolution, it is pretty good. For a real case all users have their say, so it is pretty fair, and it gives a good insight to a lot of users.

Thanks, Wanderer57 01:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hope that answers you question.  Dreamy   §  13:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Daniel
1: The use of IRC evidence in arbitration cases has flared up in certain cases. A few questions on this:-
 * a) Do you believe that IRC conversations in Wikipedia channels (ie. #wikipedia, #wikipedia-en, #wikipedia-en-admins) should be admissible in arbitration cases where it is directly relevant to the dispute at hand?
 * I believe that this should be admissible, if it is mentioned, it should be considered.


 * b) Do you believe the Arbitration Committee has the jurisdiction to sanction users in these channels when it relates to Wikipedia disruption? If not, should it?
 * Yes I do believe that. If a user has disrupted Wikipedia, how are we supposed to know if that user won't disrupt conversations on IRC.


 * c) If so, what are your thoughts on possibly creating an official Arbitration Committee IRC logging account in these channels for the purpose of providing corrupt-free logs when required for deliberation?
 * Well, I think that there should be an official Arbitration Committee IRC logging account, as it is for the purpose of providing corrupt-free logs when required for deliberation. If a log is corrupted, how can it be considered evidence or proof? That was a rhetorical question.

2: Can emails and IRC logs, etc., be published on Wikipedia? Why or why not? Should they, or shouldn't they?
 * They can be, but they can always be altered, but for evidence, I am assuming that a member of the ArbCom isn't going to alter it for their own personal bias's. I think that there should be a certain page for this sort of thing, as it is a personal thing we are looking at.

3: Are Wikipedians, in particular administrators, required to answer to the Committee for their activites outside English Wikipedia (ie. on other Wikimedia Foundation projects, Wikipedia-related websites including The Wikipedia Review, conduct linked to Wikipedia etc.). Should they be? If so, should the Arbitration Committee have intervened in the case of Requests for adminship/Gracenotes, and do you believe this was the correct decision?
 * They should be required to answer to their actions towards the English Wikipedia, regardless of where it occured, and no admin should be ok with adding wikipedia attack websites, unless it is to an article like, Criticsm of Wikipedia. Yes it was the correct decision.

4: Theoretical situation: an OTRS respondent blanks a section of an article on a living person, clearly stating that it is an OTRS action based on a semi-credible legal threat in the edit summary. The respondent then protects the article and leaves a note on the talk page asking for the section to be rebuilt, citing OTRS again. An administrator comes along and unprotects it 15mins later and reverts to the old version. A series of administrative and editorial reversions take place, with protection and unprotection (with content reversions) occurring three times in quick succession before both administrators are emergency-desysopped.

The article is then reprotected by a third administrator, and a case brought before the Arbitration Committee. Upon reviewing the OTRS ticket privately on the mailing list, it contains a semi-credible legal threat which is now being dealt with by legal counsel. With regards to the three administrators, what sanctions do you 'support' applying to each of the three?
 * 1) For the OTRS administrator, he/she should not have done any of that, without any showing of proof that it was done for the legal reasons, or with knowledge of other administrators. A warning should have been given to this user.
 * 2) For the first non-OTRS administrator, he/she should have checked the talkpage, as a large edit like that is likely to have been noted on it. This admin should also be told and warned.
 * None of them should have wheel warred, as it should have been talked out.

5: What is your (emphasis heavily intended) definition of a wheel war?
 * A wheel war is a constant battle with which two, or possibly more, admins continue to undo each others administrative actions, deletion and undeletion, protection and unprotection, blocking and unblocking.


 * I hope that I have answered your questions.  Dreamy   §  14:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Majorly
These are generic questions, so apologies if you've answered them elsewhere :)


 * 1) How do you think that your personality would make you a good arbitrator?
 * Well, I consider myself to be an easy person to work with, and I am a good dispute resolver. I have always been someone with which people have been able to identify.


 * 1) Do you have any experience in real life that could relate to activities arbitrators have to deal with?
 * None like what they deal with, though I am a qualified harassment aide.

Thanks for your time.  Majorly  (talk) 08:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope that my answers are satisfactory.  Dreamy   §  14:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Bloodpack
How would you described the present condition/status of the Wikipedia community in general from your own POV?
 * Well, I would say that if we have over five million users, and about 1,300 of them are admins, but out of the five million, at least half of them have been blocked, so the condition is quite good, which is, in my opinion, to be expected, though we have a great need for admins. I would say that most users, about 95% of users are non-attacking, non-POV pushers, and non-personal attacking users, so I am content with that.

†B lo o d p ac k† 20:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope that that has satisfied you. :)  Dreamy   §  23:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Wikidudeman
In my experience, many larger arbitrations seem to suffer from the fact that the arbitrators do not spend as much time on examining the evidence and statements as they should be spending. Examples of problems that arise would be proposals not being used or relevant issues not even being addressed. This is probably due to the large backlog and caseload. What would you do to ensure that all arbitrations are ended efficiently and fairly and that all issues and concerns are addressed and all needed remedies met?  Wikidudeman  (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I would first make sure that each case is thoroughly reviewed, before casting my vote, and I would make sure to not be biased, and use my own remedies of resolution.

I hope I have given satisfactory answers.  Dreamy   §  23:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok. You seemed to have added your comment inside of mine making it appear that it was a comment of mine. Be sure to add all comments after my signature so as not to cause confusion. For clarification. How much will you review a case before voting? Will you review it 100% and read all comments, all proposals, all evidence, all statements, etc? Even if that could result in a few hours of reading material? Thanks.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I will read it all, even if there is 5 hours of material, though I would prefer if I had read it previously, and knew what was already given.  Dreamy   §  21:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Dihydrogen Monoxide
What's your opinion on Jimbo's desysop of Zscout370? &mdash; H 2O &mdash;  00:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, he shouldn't have done it himself, if it was a wheel war then he should have brought it to the attention of the ArbCom or an OTRS admin, for third party thoughts. From what I have read, any dispute between them should have not had a block/removal of admin status by Jimbo. <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3"> Dreamy   §  00:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Why OTRS? &mdash; H 2O &mdash;  01:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My mistake, it should have been any admin/bureaucrat/steward. <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3"> Dreamy   §  18:26, 3 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 02:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In one word: Patience. <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3"> Dreamy   §  18:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from I

 * What, if anything, do you believe is wrong with the current arbitration process? This includes anything related to the Committee and its actions. If appointed, what do you intend to do to resolve these issues? i <font color="Black">(talk)  05:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A lot of the time, the cases are closed so fast that it is hard for people to get their say in, so I would like to have a case open for at least two weeks, before any votes are cast. <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3"> Dreamy   §  18:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from User:Secret

 * What do you think about self-admitted alternative accounts, see User:MOASPN, and User:Privatemusings as an example? This is a Secret account 01:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If an account is self admitted, it is borderline ok... as long as the account has not been used to add an extra vote for the Sockpuppet master, or if a password is forgotten. No warnings need to be given, if it is a sockpuppet, and an indef block of a sock is ok. <font face="Monotype Corsiva" size="3"> Dreamy   §  13:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you think of Wikipedia Review? This is a Secret account 01:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As in this ? Well, I think it is a very unfair forum that exists to disparage Wikipedia, and it will continue to do so, until wikipedia falls into complete chaos, which I hope will never happen. <font face="Monotype Corsiva" size="3"> Dreamy   §  16:13, 4 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 03:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, a neutral point of view and a scientific point of view differ, as a scientific one, can have theories attached, and a neutral point of view wouldn't have any theorys, it should have fact, not opinions. <font face="Monotype Corsiva" size="3"> Dreamy   §  21:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Cla68
Have you been the primary editor on any articles that have been successfully nominated for Featured or Good article status? Cla68 07:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a primary editor per se, as there are about three good editors that work constantly on it, it is Royal Canadian Air Cadets. It is a good article, and should soon be an FA. <font face="Monotype Corsiva" size="3"> Dreamy   §  21:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from jd2718
Less than two weeks ago you withdrew from a Request for Admin, citing the need to take time and address some of the negative comments. Do you think you have addressed those comments in these last 10 days? Jd2718 04:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that I have come a long way from the things that were stated, like my sig has been changed, I have re-read the policies, and when to use a wikify tag. I have maintained a civil attitude, and have been continuing to mediate the case. I have fixed my points to make things work, and to look good. I have checked a diffs with a much higher degree of clarity. If I was to be nomed fo adminship, I cannot be counted against them any longer. <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3"> Dreamy   §  15:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from WJBscribe
A few questions from me. I'm asking all candidates the same thing. I don't think anyone's asked these yet but I they have, feel free to just point me to a previous answer. Thanks for your time and good luck. WjBscribe 23:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Appointment to the Arbitration Committee is for three years - a lot can change on Wikipedia in three years. Should there be a mechanism by which the Community can recall an arbitrator in whose judgment it loses confidence? Do you have any thoughts as to what form that mechanism should take?
 * 2) ArbCom is responsible for assigning checkuser and oversight access to users of the English Wikipedia. Would you advocate withdrawing the access in the case of someone someone who failed to make sufficient use of it? If yes, what sort of activity level would you say is required?
 * 3) Where the Community finds itself unable to reach a consensus on the formulation of a given policy, do you think ArbCom has a role to play in determining that policy?


 * 1) A. If there is an adminship recall program, there should be an arbitrator recall program. The same way as an admin recall program.
 * 2) A. I wouldn't. Would you remove sysop powers if a sysop wasn't using them? Rhetorical again.
 * 3) A. If the community cannot find itself able to reach consensus on a policy, any policy, the ArbCom should play a part in helping the community to find out what the policy means, and should not force their opinion on it, should only find consensus. <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3"> Dreamy    §  23:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Revolving Bugbear
In light of the recent ruling in the French courts re WMF:

The servers for English Wikipedia are hosted in the United States, and the WMF is incorporated in the United States (Florida, specifically). But Wikipedians can access and edit Wikipedia from anywhere in the world (with the possible exceptions of China and Burma, maybe, but that's neither here nor there). Given that, as an ArbCom member, you might be dealing with issues such as possible legal threats against Wikipedia, whose laws does Wikipedia need to follow? What should be done if there is a legitimate concern raised by a Wikipedian that an article may be in violation of US law? What about law of a country other than the US? - Revolving Bugbear  16:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I find this one of the easier questions, as if we are dealing with a legitimate legal concern that is in, say, Poland, than you would have to use the Polish laws, as the legal officials in Poland wouldn't care if that law is/isn't in the USA, they care because it is in Poland. Unless it is refering to an American official in Poland, assuming this person is a diplomat, or somone that can claim diplomatic immunity, this person must answer to all of the laws of all involved countries, I would say. <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3"> Dreamy   §  18:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from 62.147.37.199
Your |recent history in main shows a flurry of edits labelled "Fixed section header" such as edits this one, i.e.: changing each heading of an article from unspaced "==Title==" to spaced "== Title ==". And doing so with one edit per heading, ten edits per article if the article has ten headings. Thank you. 62.147.37.199 08:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you doing these edits by hand, by script, by AWB?
 * Are you aware that they are not "fixes" as your edit summary claim, but an unnecessary and actually prohibited kind of edit?
 * Are you aware that they bring absolutely nothing to Wikipedia, overload the database servers, waste bandwith, and clog users' watchlists for nothing?
 * Are you aware that they are considered fake edits, whether done by hand or by script, used only to artificially boost one's edit count in main?
 * Are you aware that the ArbCom has already banned users for similar acts?


 * 1) By hand.
 * 2) Under what grounds is it prohibited? Not fixes per se, and actually that is the way the software makes it.
 * 3) Is this an attempt to attack me, without an attack? It doesn't clog the server bandwith, trust me, vandals do it a lot more than I am doing.
 * 4) I am attempting to make it into a similar setup for all articles, not to inflate my edit count.
 * 5) Those acts are a lot different, as mine are not for my personal style, they are for a similar setup.

<font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3"> Dreamy   §  21:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Piotrus
--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you think an arbitrator should be active in all cases he has no conflict or interests in?
 * 2) If the arbitrator is active, should he be expected to comment in workshop / arbcom discussion pages?
 * 3) 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?
 * 4) How can WP:CIV and similar issues be enforced? Should they be enforced as efficient as 3RR?
 * 1) Not if he/she has no conflict or interest, as there might be 30 cases like that, which is just overloading on the mind.
 * No, as incivility should not be tolerated for anyone.
 * 1) If a user is uncivil, and it has been so, but has been warned, and blocked, then should it be brought to the ArbCom? Yes they should.

<font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3"> Dreamy   §  21:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Question fron Aatomic1
You mention this case :User:Dreamafter/Mediation/Answer/Summaries/Final/Discussion could you explain what you consider your role to be and you have achieved it? Aatomic1 (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I see two questions here, so here goes:
 * My role is as the mediator, which means that I have the position of setting up a place, in this case, the link you mentioned, for discussion. Which is the place that everyone involved, and interested, can contribute to try and find a compromise.
 * What I think your next question meant was : How did you get this position/achieved this position? If not please correct me. I got this position by volunteering to help with the mediation of this case.

<font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3"> Dreamy   §  02:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I was really looking for evidence to support sections from your opening statement
 * I am a very good diplomat
 * I care about what happens
 * I think that disputes need to be fixed in a non-attack way.

Aatomic1 (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

<tt>&lt; DREAMAFTER &gt;&lt; TALK &gt;</tt> 20:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I was at one point in the middle of a debate, not in the debate, and the people were getting quite angry, and I helped fix it.
 * 2) I do indeed care about what happens, in your case, I care that you don't get blocked for doing what you have been doing.
 * 3) They don't need an attack to solve a dispute, you only need to discuss it.

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?--<font color="#0000C0">David <font color="#0000C0">Shankbone  18:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia should stay out of the political debate and remain a NPOV. Most articles have even more than two view points. I have no, or very little, respect for editors who try to turn articles into political debates and or a way of proving something anyone for a political figure or article. This is not a positive development, in a lot of ways; we, as in Wikipedia, must stick to a neutral point of view. As for American society, well, all societies must be working their way to a more political point of view, are they not? <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3"> Dreamy   §  22:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Marlith
What do you want Wikipedia to be ten years from now. <font color="Green">Marlith  T / C  01:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)