Hi all! My name is (Redacted), and I've been an editor on the English Wikipedia for a little over seven years, where I've come to enjoy collaborating with you lot. Through my time here, I've gained an insight into Wikipedia policies as well as an interest in dispute resolution and some of the housekeeping which is needed to help Wikipedia run smoothly. I've had a real insight into the range of contributors we have here through my volunteering at OTRS (which also means I'm identified to the WMF). I'd like to help further by serving on the Arbitration Committee. I confirm I will fully comply with the criteria for access to non-public data, and I have two doppelgänger accounts (Redacted) (real name) and User:Myrcx (registered IRC name) and an unused bot account User:Xphois. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your questions.

• Thank you all for your questions and consideration. On reflection, although I believed I would be a net positive to ArbCom, my lack of experience would ultimately cause more issues than I could hope to solve. I'd like to wish everyone running the best of luck. Many thanks samtar ^{t} 16:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Samtar ( talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)

v t e Arbitration Committee Election 2015 candidate: Samtar Candidate statement Questions for the candidate Discuss this candidate

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Thank you for stepping forward!

2. Arbitration findings and the wishes of principal editors govern the use of infoboxes in articles. If you want to win my "neutral" please say how you would close the discussion at Talk:Joseph (opera)#Restore infobox?

4. An editor has been blocked for a month in the name of arbitration enforcement for having said that he creates half of his featured content with women. I find it kafkaesque and remember the opening of The Metamorphosis for an analogy. If you want to win my "support", please - on top of #1 - suggest improvements to get from arbitration enforcement ( "not a fun place") to arbitration supervision, where such a thing would not happen. I offered some thoughts, wishing to see Floquenbeam's "no foul, play on" more often, or Yunshui's " The edit was unproblematic and actually made Wikipedia better."

-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 18:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Thank you for running for the hardest and most thankless job on the project. Many of these questions are sourced from actual cases, discussions, and problems over the past year. Enjoy!

2. The Audit Subcommittee was created in 2009 to investigate improper tool usage of our Check Users and Oversighters. Currently, neither the community nor the committee can decide how to handle it. There have been calls to completely disband the subcommittee, transfer its role to the functionaries en banc, and extend it for another year. The current auditors terms expired on 1 October, 2015 and they have been continuing in their roles without formal authorization. What would you do about the subcommittee if you were elected to ArbCom?

   Thank you for these questions Guerillero. A subcommittee such as this, in my opinion, needs to exist in order to hold our most trusted members of the community accountable to their actions. However, given the current auditors' terms are expired, if elected I would move to disband the subcommittee and seek the communities advice and ultimately consensus on the best way of investigating improper use of check and OS tools. Failing a clear consensus, I believe the role should be transferred to the functionaries.

4. The Ban Appeals Subcommittee exists to hear appeals of community bans and long-term blocks. There have been moves to divest this role from the committee. What would you do about the subcommittee if you were elected to ArbCom?

   If elected, I would consider supporting movements which help bring about a transparency in relation to ban appeals. If this means moving the role away from the committee and back into the community, I would wholeheartedly support this.

2. What are your standards for banning someone from the project compared to a topic ban or some lesser sanction?

   As I'm not currently an administrator, I would personally be apprehensive about project bans. This being said, I understand that there is a time and a place for such a sanction, and would say my 'standards' are: If a user has repeatedly violated a policy and shows no intentions of attempting to change and has not given a reasonable explanation for their actions. Although not concrete, and obviously missing out gross violations which would merit an immediate project ban, I think editors should be given chances to understand/improve.

4. Nearly every case involves violations of the civility policy in some way. At one time, a remedy call a "Civility Parole" existed but it fell out of vogue. Today, the only tools in the current Arbitrator's toolboxes to deal with civility issues are interaction bans, topic bans, and site bans. What new and creative ways would you bring to the table to solve this problem?

6. Do you believe that the Super Mario Problem exists? How would you fix it?

8. Do you see value in Admonishments and Warnings as remedies at the end of a case?

2. Does the workshop serve as a useful portion of a case?

   Yes, I believe the workshop does serve as a useful portion of a case, however in it's current form it is lacking and could be improved.

2. To what extent should people who write many GAs and FAs be exempt from WP:CIVIL?

   I won't lie BethNaught, this did make me stop and think for a second.. Every editor, new and seasoned alike, should abide by WP:CIVIL. I don't believe it's a big ask for people to try to keep their cool, but I can appreciate that sometimes it can be difficult.

2. The community has had a hard time grappling with the issue of paid ediing and conflicts of interest, and such problems have in the past been at least partly responsible for the loss of admin, functionaries, and even arbitrators. Seeing as you have drafted an article on a subject you have a personal, paid connection to (although to your credit you have been totally honest and upfront about your involvement) I am curious as to what your opinion is of paid ediing and if you may be more likely to be sympathetic to paid editors should such a matter come before the committee?

   Hi Beeblebrox, thank you for this question. To be very honest, my opinion on paid editing is woefully simple - if it is constructive and neutral then it should be considered at an equal level as any other edit by any other editor. If elected (and even if not), each edit I come across will be scrutinised the same. As for my COI draft, the more I look into the subject, the less notable it seems and the more likely I'll abandon it.

2. 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?

   Thank you for your questions Collect. Yes, I believe a case can be opened without presuming that sanctions will be necessary. I would like to think that although most methods of dispute resolution would probably had been tried (and failed), an ArbCom case allows for an evidence based discussion which could bring about a sanction-free resolution. Unfortunately history has shown that sanctions in one way or another are often imposed.

4. If an administrator states (hypothetically) "You will vote however you like, and I am frankly not interested in changing your mind, but you should at least be honest about why you are opposing me. At the moment, you are not", would that administrator be considered "involved" or "impartial" in any way with the editor in whose talk space he made such an edit?

   Without knowing if the administrator has had any previous involvement with the user, I would be uncomfortable in saying for sure if they are 'impartial' or 'involved'. I would have a feeling that the administrator had been a little uncivil, but not to the extent to cause any issue.

6. Are arbitators under any reasonable obligation to afford editors who are out of the country on a trip, or have other substantial reasons for absence from a case, any delays in considering cases concerning them? If such a person is given only 1000 words to rebut 1000 words from each of five or more "evidence providers", is that a reasonable limit to place on the defendant, or ought the limit be raised to allow rebuttal of each such section?

   Whereas arbitators are not obligated to afford editors delays, in my experience I have seen this being done multiple times, and I agree with it. External events can and do take prevalance over Wikipedia, and this should be understood and accepted by arbitators and other editors alike.

2. Please divulge as much of your demographic information as you are comfortable making public. Specifically: your gender, including whether you are cis, trans or other; your sexual orientation; your race and/or ethnicity; where you live (feel free to specify you live in Triesenberg if you want, but a country or continent will do just fine — even just "Southern Hemisphere" or "Western Hemisphere" is helpful); whether you have any condition considered a disability (even if you're not so disabled you're unable to work) including deafness, physical disabilities, developmental disabilities and mental illnesses, again being only as specific as you wish; and what social class you belong to (e.g. working class, middle class, etc.). ¶ If you prefer not to answer any or all of those categories, I won't count it against you. My intention in asking for this information is not to out anyone or try to force affirmative action. However, when deciding between two otherwise equally qualified candidates, I would prefer to be able to vote for more diversity on ArbCom rather than less.

   Hi GrammarFascist, I'm a 21 year old male from South England.

4. Please list at least one pro and one con of having non-administrators serve on ArbCom. — GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 22:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   I believe having a non-administrator voice on ArbCom would provide new and sometimes differing opinions, and possibly help in allaying the (albeit rare) feeling of 'them and us'. That being said, I'm very conscious of the fact that a non-admin would not have access to any of the tools often needed to enforce or otherwise assist decisions

2. In the past couple of years, the ArbCom has closed various cases, passed motions, and such. Is/Are there any outcome/s that you disagree with? If yes, which? And, what result/s would you have rather preferred? Ya sh ! 06:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

2. Hi, I'm Dave, I was on Arbcom between 2013 and 2014. I can tell you now that being an arbitrator is tough - you become a target. Comments you make will be taken out of context, your motives and abilities will be insulted, you may be threatened or harassed. Have you thought much about the "dark side" of being an arbitrator? How have you prepared for this?

   Hi Dave, thanks for your question. I think this would be best answered simply and shortly - I've not prepared for this per se, but in my Wikipedia experience (and real world experience) I believe I have met and dealt with conflict and personal attacks in the best possible way. I do fully understand the "dark side" of arbitrating, and if elected would accept this as part and parcel of the role.

   Thanks for taking the time to answer Samtar, and good luck. Worm^TT( talk) 09:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC) reply

2. Wikipedia is starting to have a reputation for bullying and misogyny, see, e.g the recent article in The Atlantic by Emma Paling, " Wikipedia's Hostility to Women”.
   Are you willing to take serious steps to stop bullying of editors on Wikipedia? especially bullying directed toward women editors? Is this one of your top 2 priorities? What would you consider to be a more important priority than stopping the bullying? Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 17:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   Smallbones, thank you for addressing a very important topic. Personal attacks/bullying are some of the worst aspects of Wikipedia, and I've noticed an increase over the last couple of years. Yes, I am willing to take serious steps to help reduce bullying and harassment - Wikipedia should be a safe place for all editors, regardless of gender/race/sexual orientation

2. Do you have experience in successfully resolving disputes, either on-wiki or off-wiki?

   Hi Biblioworm, thanks for your question. Yes - I do have experience in successfully resolving disputes both on and off-wiki. I believe a lot of my time at OTRS is spent talking to new users who are understandably quite upset when their new article is deleted, or someone else comes and begins editing. In situations such as these, I spend a lot of time trying to understand the issue from their point of view, and then giving explanations and "the next steps" they can take to remain constructive members of Wikipedia. As a side note, congratulations on your recent RfA!

Hi, and thank you for running for Arbcom. These questions focus on WP:OUTING. For the purposes of these questions please assume the editors' usernames are far more distinct and unique than the ones I have given.

2. User:Foo get's into an edit conflict on Wikipedia with User:Bar, and end up as parties to a large Arbcom case. Soon afterwards on reddit someone going by the username Bar begins posting lots of critical and disparaging threads about Foo. In these threads they claim to be Wikipedia user Bar. The Bar account on Wikipedia is older than the Bar account on reddit by several years, however the Wikipedia account had only really begun active editing a few years after the reddit account had been created. Foo notices these posts and complains on Bar's talk page and ANI. Bar responds by accusing Foo of WP:OUTING and claims that the account might not even be his. Is it OUTING to connect the Bar reddit account with the Bar Wikipedia account?

   In my opinion of what WP:OUTING states, yes this is OUTING. I refer to the section in WP:OUTING which states "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment [...] whether any such information is accurate or not". However, I am conscious of the section stating "Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable on a case-by-case basis".

4. User:Alice is a party in an Arbcom case. She is browsing the internet one day and decides to google her Wikipedia username. She finds that somebody has uploaded naked photos of another woman to a pornsite and labelled them "Alice of Wikipedia." She looks into the account that has uploaded these files and comes to the conclusion that it is owned by Wikipedia User:Bob, an editor she had clashed with heavily on wiki. In the process she also finds out his real life identity. She emails her evidence to Arbcom. Alice then decides to go to Wikipediocracy's forums, and makes a thread informing them of this porn site account. She asks them if they can guess which Wikipedia editor is behind it, and mentions that she also knows his real life identity. They independently come to the conclusion that it is User:Bob and figure out his real life identity without Alice giving the game away. Alice confirms that this is the case. Nobody in the forum finds it remotely questionable that Bob owns the account in question. In such a situation is it appropriate for Arbcom to pass a finding of fact stating "Alice posted inappropriately to an off-wiki website apparently with the objective of having the participants identify a Wikipedia editor by name." Furthermore is it appropriate for them to then use this supposed violation of WP:OUTING as part of their justification for site banning Alice?

2. Why did you not run for adminship first ? While it is not necessary for every arb to Block,delete,protect,oversight or use Checkuser as others can do it. But How will get access to deleted material as a non admin which is necessary for every Arb as in most of the cases evidence involves deleted material.This is absolutely essential to take a decision.?

   Thanks for your question Pharaoh of the Wizards. Although becoming an administrator is something I would like to do one day, I'm not entirely sure why I haven't RfA'd yet - perhaps it's my low edit count, or lack of GA articles making me believe I would probably be unsuccessful? There's quite an interesting conversation on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015 which I've taken part in addressing how non-admin arbs would get access to the CU/OS user rights.

2. In general, does enforcing civility harm free speech? Does it help it?

4. It's been pointed out that incivility and harassment are not precisely the same thing. What is the line between incivility and harassment? How much does incivility, when it doesn't cross the line into harassment, affect our ability to retain editors, including but not limited to its effects on the gender gap?

6. Arbcom's actions have come under scrutiny from the outside press lately. Do you think the Arbcom has a role in educating reporters about cases when they come under such scrutiny, to reduce the factual inaccuracies that sometimes creep into these articles? For example, do you think that releasing statements, such as been done once on a previous case, should be considered in the future? If so, how could they be made more effective?

8. This question is optional, since candidates don't necessarily like to talk about current cases. But imagine that you are a current member of the Arbcom and you are delegated the task of writing a succinct, neutral primer for the press, of no more than a few paragraphs, on the circumstances leading to the current case Arbitration enforcement 2. Write that primer below. Do not cover or express an opinion on the proposed or actual decision, but concentrate on how you would help a reporter understand what happened before the case was filed.

10. One last question. Wikipedia relies primarily on volunteer labor, and many are attracted to Wikipedia in part due to its countercultural, even transgressive nature of subverting traditional gatekeepers to knowledge. Recently there has been increasing participation by professionals from academic and cultural institutions. This is perhaps causing some angst that the community and its interactions may become "professionalized" to the exclusion of established editors. Do you feel this fear is warranted? How can volunteers and professionals with different standards of conduct be made to coexist on Wikipedia with the minimal disruption to our existing contributor base?

2. In your own words, please explain the purpose of the Arbitration Committee and why its existence is necessary. And what, if any, changes or reforms would you support regarding the structuring and processes of Wikipedia's arbitration system?

2. Looking at your contribution history and edit counter statistics, I notice that you have a shorter-than-average editing history compared to other arbitrators and arbitration candidates. Do you have any unique skills or traits that you believe would otherwise make you a suitable arbitrator?

2. How many hours per week do you plan to work on the Arbitration Committee?-- Müdigkeit ( talk) 19:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply