Hello everyone, and nice to meet you all. I'm Wildthing61476 and I have been an editor on Wikipedia now for close to 10 years. My time here on Wikipedia is spent more with cleaning up vandalism or making corrections to articles where they may need to be done. I have focused more on editing articles about topics I'm quite familiar with, such as articles regarding the Baltimore and Maryland areas. I do comment on WP:ANI from time to time, and have read through some previous ArbCom committee rulings to get a better understanding of what is required as a member of ArbCom.

As per the instructions I will abide by the rules and fully disclose that I have no other accounts on Wikipedia, and I have only edited through this account during my time here (save for when I forgot to login). I do not have any blocks or disciplinary measures on my account, and will fully comply with whatever information is required by WMF should I be selected.

I feel that I would be an asset as a member of ArbCom, as I consider myself to be level headed, and I am able to critically review an issue and give an honest estimation on that issue based on the facts. I can, and believe I have proven, that I can remain neutral, and not let personal opinion fly in the face of what an issue is presented. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• Wildthing61476 ( 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: Wildthing61476 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?

   Thank you for offering this and your other question to me! Reviewing the information from the link you provide me there, it appears that there was a majority opinion building there that an infobox for this article would benefit the readers, as it had a good deal of information in one concise location. Additionally, the comments that one of the users said in that they didn't want the infobox because they created it flies in the face of what Wikipedia is, that being a community building an encyclopedia. In the end the question is this: Does the infobox help or hurt the article? The infobox I feel helps the page, therefore I would close by saying that the infobox helps the article, and the reader as a whole, and the infobox should stay. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 21:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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."

   With regards to this question, this is an area which is actually addressing a more widespread problem on Wikipedia, namely the behavior of editors towards each other. The area where I believe arbitration enforcement comes in is that arbitration should be the final step in the resolution chain. Arbitration should be used when all other avenues have been used, and there is not a clear cut resolution to the issue. It shouldn’t be the first avenue to solve a problem, but rather the last stop to have an issue settled. To enforce this, this will require one the community involvement of course, however, this needs to be examine still by a case by case basis. One “violation” of an ArbCom ruling may not be that, it could be a misunderstanding. It would take an examination of the event and the issue to better determine what the end result would be. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 21:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Thank you for evaluating a consensus. The second question is possibly too specialised: I have a problem when a harmless edit is seen as a violation of restrictions, and I would like to see something better than a block, which would not impress me if I was the victim. Please follow the link to my thoughts (above, developed in August, before this happened, because unfortunately I see it happen again and again, last year I had a different example) and see how far you would follow an approach of talk before block. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply

My apologizes for the delay, I'm going to read over the info you gave me and give you my thoughts on it. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 20:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

I feel that a block is a measure given when the situation merits it. However, a block also needs to be given at the appropriate time, and not to stifle debate or to silence an opinion. If someone falls out of line with regards to a topic ban, and it's a clear-cut case they did, then this is block worthy. If there is grey area, that needs to be looked at to ensure the topic ban stays in place. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 13:49, 17 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)} 19:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   I know that there has been a growing concern, both on Wikipedia and off, as how editors react to one another, and specifically the role of women on Wikipedia. I’m a male editor so I can’t say that I have experience some of the actions that have been reported by female editors here, however I do find that harassment of editors on Wikipedia in general is deplorable, regardless of gender. My own philosophy here is simple: I treat people in the way I would want to be treated. I try at all time to remain civil and cordial, even when I may disagree with the opinion of the person I am speaking with. As I have stated before, Wikipedia is a COMMUNITY of editors. There is always going to be a difference of opinion, and a difference of thought, but to me that is what I like about Wikipedia, different thought, ideas, concepts coming together to present as a whole. Bullying doesn’t have a place here, or anywhere else online, again regardless of gender. I don’t care if it’s a woman or man being bullied on Wikipedia, it isn’t right or appropriate. We have a policy here to be civil and I feel we need to remember that as it is one of the five pillars that Wikipedia is based off of. Bullying flies directly in the face of that concept and I know it has become a bigger issue here. Accusations of bullying also need to be looked at on a case by case basis though, because what one person could see as bullying may just be an opinion they do not like to hear. However, I do feel that if an editor is bullying another, and its brought to ArbCom, it needs to be dealt with in a manner that is serious and shows that Wikipedia will not tolerate such behavior to its editors. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 22:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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?

   The Arbitration Committee to me are the people who are the final point in the process of solving a dispute, or issues revolving around user conduct on Wikipedia. ArbCom handles a lot of issues, including the removing of administrative tools in cases where there could be abuse of the system by administrators. ArbCom also has to handle matters that need to be kept private, such as legal threats or privacy issues that could have Wikipedia facing legal ramifications. These reasons are why I feel that an active, competent and responsive Arbitration Committee is a necessary group to have on Wikipedia. As I have read over some older ArbCom cases and seen what resolutions have come from them, I can’t say if I would specifically change anything regarding the structure and process. I feel that the process is fair, and gives all involved parties a chance to voice their concerns, and in resolving a arbitration dispute, the resolutions are clear and easy to understand and read. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 22:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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?

   Yes I do feel that a case can be opened without the idea that sanctions will be implemented. Every case is different and every case has its own intricacies and particulars. I do not feel an arbitrator will HAVE to impose sanctions once a case is own, because until all the facts are present and all of the evidence is shown from all parties, there isn't a way to say for sure what will be done. In short, you cannot go into a case knowing what you are looking to decide, as this will bias your thought. ArbCom members need to stay neutral throughout to give their best judgment. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 16:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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?

   I would said that the administrator is no longer impartial, as they have already decided in a way how the ArbCom members is behaving. By said "you are not" being honest, that's passing judgment that the admin is being lied to. I wouldn't call this involvement, but it is showing a measure of being partial. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 16:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

2. 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?

   If a user is not going to be available to rebut a claim, or present evidence, all good faith should be given to give that editor a chance to make their statement, with the understanding that if they cannot make their statement in a timely manner due to their reasoning, this too will be considered. A case cannot beheld up indefinitely for one editor, however a good faith effort to extend a deadline is certainly something to be considered. In the case of rebutting multiple user's claims a defendant needs to be given a equal chance to rebut their claims. If there are 5 people presenting evidence against a defendant at 1000 words each, it may not be possible for the defendant to rebut in 1000 words total. This puts the defendant at a 5 to 1 disadvantage. There in this case should be a raising of the limit, say to 500 words for each sections, so that the text does not become overwhelming in the case, but allows the defendant a chance to rebut the points given. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 16:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

   Enforcing civility does not, in my opinion, hurt free speech but helps to foster it. Free speech is something of a misnomer, as free speech doesn't mean you get the right to say what you want, when you want, but you can say what you want, however what you say, you will be held accountable for. Not enforcing civility can lead to a situation where free speech could be stifled, as if uncivil comments aren't kept in check, there could come a point where the "genie is out of the bottle" so to speak, and speech may need to be restricted tighter to ward off the gross incivility. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 16:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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?

   Incivility and harassment are indeed two separate things. Incivility can be something where an argument gets out of control, and two users start using heated words, slinging personal attacks, or just being downright hostile or rude to each other. That however is not harassment. Harassment would be continued, unwarranted attacks on a user by another user or users, up to and including off-wiki harassment. That is not to say however incivility is a "good" thing compared to harassment. The tone and incivility of some users towards others on Wikipedia can be a daunting thing, especially for someone not used to how Wikipedia may operate at times. I don't see this as a gender gap issue so much as it is an issue where people may come to Wikipedia because they found an article they were looking at, saw a correction that could be made and found they joined it, then proceed to be attacked y other users who have an opinion of the "right way" an article is supposed to be. This can bewilder or chase off new users, or even experienced users should they feel tired of this. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 16:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

6. Arbcom's actions have come under scrutiny from the outside press lately, often leading to articles with factual inaccuracies and misrepresentations. 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 on the circumstances leading to the current case Arbitration enforcement 2. Write that primer below. (The press likes succinctness too, so no more than a few paragraphs worth of text.) Edit: To clarify, the question does not cover the proposed or actual decision, but about how you would help a reporter understand what happened before the case was filed.

   The story printed in the Atlantic brought to light what is a growing concern among editors on Wikipedia, namely the mistreatment of editors, in particular focusing on women, on the site. It should be known that one of the five pillars that Wikipedia is formed from is civility. Civility on Wikipedia is taken seriously, and every editor, regardless of race, gender, political viewpoint, etc. should be given the same respect as anyone else. The case that came to light was as a result of a single comment made by a user, which was seen as an example of a sexist environment on Wikipedia. This however dis not the environment that is Wikipedia. Comments such as the one brought to light in the article as a direct violation of the civility policy on Wikipedia, and that sort of conduct is not warranted. With respect to the person that had the comment directed to them, their account was indeed banned on the site, however this was not as a result of the report of the harassment, but of other actions, namely that the Arbitration Committee found that their behavior with other editors in editing article, discussing such edits, and faiure to abide by community consensus was a negative for the community as a whole. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 16:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

8. More generally, do you think the Arbcom has a role in educating reporters about cases when they come under scrutiny? 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 me made more effective?

   I feel that the statement released by ArbCom as in your example given there was an excellent way to communicate to the press how a "hot button" issue such as GamerGate was handled on Wikipedia. I feel that in extreme circumstances where a public viewpoint is needed, a statement such as the example you gave can be used to communicate to the press how issues such as the situation with GamerGate are handled to allow Wikipedia to be transparent. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 13:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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?

    I am of the opinion that Wikipedia is a community that is a collective of all its members, be they professionals or not. That being said, this is a collective of users, and one group of editors shouldn't have the authority to change how the process works overall on Wikipedia. Every user is held to the same rules and policies when editing here. I feel that if a professional in a field wants to contribute, that they have an understanding of the policies here and work within the community to be a productive editor. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 13:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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.

   I'm a straight white male, born and raised and lived in Baltimore my entire life. I do not have any disabilities, and I would consider myself in the middle class I guess. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 14:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

2. Please list at least one pro and one con of having non-administrators serve on ArbCom.

   One pro of having a non-administrator serving on ArbCom would be a larger pool of candidates to work from. Having someone who isn't an admin, but is still well versed in how Wikipedia operates, what's expected from Wikipedia editors, and how to help resolve disputes can be a benefit as if gives a different viewpoint and perspective than someone who has been an admin. As a con, obviously an admin will have received support from the community as a whole to begin with, as they were given admin rights. Admins also tend to be more skilled users, and have a little more "pull" than a regular user. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 14:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks for responding, Wildthing61476. — GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 01:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

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 ! 20:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   Reviewing some of the ArbCom cases, I will admit in a few areas I did not have the full background, and wouldn’t feel right in passing judgment on how a case was handled. However there was one incident that stood out, and that was the way the Malik Shabazz incident was handled. I felt that the drastic step of an emergency de-sysop was reaching too far, especially in a situation where Malik was deliberately provoked. This is an area where I felt there needed to be better discussion, and less reflex/reaction. A better look at the issue, and the role that race was playing, as it did in this case, would have made for a better resolution in the end. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 16:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

   I do have experience handling disputes, particularly off-wiki. On a humorous note, I am a dad of 2 pre-school aged boys, so there are disputes ALL the time with them. I guess in a way blocks are the “time-out” corner of Wikipedia you could say. In all seriousness, I have also handled disputes at my job. Previously I was a supervisor, and I would need to handle issues that would occur between employees from time to time. In these cases I would listen to both sides, then give my resolution based on the facts presented, and the information I was able to disseminate. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 16:45, 16 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?

   At this point I would first continue the work of the Audit Subcommittee, as their role is vital to ensure that people with the power of Check User and Oversighters are not over-extending their tools and state that their role would continue for another year. Within that year it would be needed that a settlement to the issue is made however, so that this does not occur in 2016. This would give formal authorization, and a mandate to find a solution within a year’s time. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 21:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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?

   The BASC as I see as of the 12th was disbanded. I feel this was a good idea, as from reading into how the ban appeal process worked, this took a great deal of time away from working on the encyclopedia itself from the editors that were on the BASC. Using the UTRS will help free up editors to work on the encyclopedia more, and gives a central way for a banned editors to appeal a decision, rather than going through a multitude of ways. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 21:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

   I feel an outright ban from Wikipedia is the “break glass in case of fire” step of a dispute resolution. It should be used only when all good faith, community patience and possibility of reform has been exhausted. If an editors has become so egregious that their work is a greater negative than positive anywhere on Wikipedia, then a site ban is needed. If an editor’s work is polarized in subject FOO for instance, but in other topics such as subject BAR, XYZ and so on there isn’t a disruption to the project, then a topic ban for subject FOO is warranted. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 21:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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?

   Civility is a messy area, not just on Wikipedia, but anywhere you go on the internet. The idea that you can hide behind the “cloak of anonymity” gives people a false sense of courage, and they can lash out against other users in ways that wouldn’t normally be done face to face. The best way to tackle the issue with civility on Wikipedia is to try to address it head on. While this doesn’t mean every negative comment needs to be looked at, there does need to be a focus on the use of slurs o rabid insults against users on Wikipedia. Interaction bans in the case of incivility between users are a good way to help try to slow the incivility down, however I do not know if there is a “magic bullet” to fix the incivility issue on Wikipedia. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 21:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

   The “Super Mario Problem” as it was addressed in the example given is a curious one. While yes having an admin’s roles revoke to make them a “regular user” is a form of punishment, I feel that this doesn’t solve the issue. Administrators are chosen by their peers on Wikipedia to help foster an environment for all to collaborate and work cohesively. In that respect I feel that administrators need to be held to a higher standard when it comes to their practices on the site. The actions of the admin that was at the heart of the case listed in your linked performed actions that if it was a user with no admin rights would have been blocked, or possibly banned. Just stripping the admin rights away from an admin to me isn’t enough. Each act needs to be evaluated as if it was a user without admin rights. If the actions would warrant a specific penalty for a standard user, then this should apply across the board, especially with someone chosen to be a “face” of Wikipedia as an administrator. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 21:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

   I do feel that there are times where an admonishment or a warning is appropriate as a remedy at the end of a case. Not every case is going to present itself with the need for a heavy-handed outcome, as each case is different. I believe that reviewing a case on its own merits is needed, with no predetermination as to what level of remediation is needed until the case is over, even if it is a warning to the parties involved. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 21:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

   While I feel that it could benefit during a case, from the cases I read over it doesn't look like right now the workshop plays too big of a role to effect the outcome of a case. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 21:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

2. Why did you not first run for adminship given the fact that no Non admin has ever been elected to arbcom ?

   I actually did run for adminship, albeit years ago, and was turned down due to timing. I have considered running again in the future for adminship, and placed a poll for that reason to gage what the community thought of my time here at Wikipedia. I feel that I would make for an excellent member of ArbCom, even if I was not an admin, because I feel that I cause assist in handling matters that are brought to ArbCom in a rational and neutral manner, and be able to explain why the decisions that were made were done so in a succinct way. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 16:50, 16 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?

   This is actually a really good question, and one that I have considered prior to my self-nomination. I know that if chosen to be part of ArbCom that all of my moves would be scrutinized, and there is the chance of the occasional threat or harassment to come from this. I feel I have prepared myself by one, not taking what is said to me personally. More times than not it’s not ME that the anger is directed to but the actin that is being taken by ArbCom as a whole. If this would become an area where my actual personal, private life is involved, I feel that I have taken measure to ensure I keep myself safe off-line as well. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 16:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   Thanks for taking the time to answer Wildthing61476, I wish you the best of luck Worm^TT( talk) 19:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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 this case, I don't see this as a case of WP:OUTING of a user. It's difficult to say whether the Bar on Wikipedia is the same as on Reddit and vice versa. In this example, you could have a case where someone is posing as Bar on Reddit to disparage Bar on Wikipedia in support of Foo. Without any real concrete evidence, I couldn't see this as WP:OUTING. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 13:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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?

   From reading the particulars of this case, I know which case this is related to. In that case, as with this, I feel that the appropriate action of a site ban for “Alice” was proper, as providing a Wikipedia editors real-life identity and information brings a new set of security issues for the editor, and possibly legal ramifications for Wikipedia as well. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 13:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply

2. How many hours per week do you plan to work on the Arbitration Committee?-- Müdigkeit ( talk) 19:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   Excellent question, however I don't know if I can give an exact answer to it. I will say if I am chosen to serve on the Committee I will ensure that I dedicate enough time to review cases as they appear and participate in discussions as they come up. I can see giving 5-10 hours a week minimum to work on ArbCom issues if I was held to a number. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 19:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply

2. What have you learned from your unsuccessful RfA in 2007, and how would you apply that learning to this situation? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   I learned that I attempted to become an admin WAY too soon in 2007. I had only been an editor for maybe a few months to close to a year at that point, and trying to be an admin was rather foolish at that time. In this case I feel that I have enough expertise, both on and off wikki, in handling resolutions that I would be a positive as a member of ArbCom. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 14:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

4. In your candidate statement you say "I have been an editor on Wikipedia now for close to 10 years". What was the reasoning behind not mentioning that you had a break for three years, and only returned five months ago? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   Good question and one I was waiting to be asked to be honest. I honestly forgot to add about the extended break I took from Wikipedia to handle things in real life that I would rather not go into detail about. Those issues have been resolved and I can focus my time and attention on Wikipedia in a manner that would be becoming of an arbitrator. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 14:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

2. Hello, Wildthing61476. I saw your answer to SmallBones above about bullying, and i am impressed and assured by your answer that you take bullying seriously. However, it can be a long time until an ArbCom case may begin and then complete, and sometimes in the course of it there can be even worse bullying by the same people if that is going on to begin with. Would you feel that a volunteer "bullying task force" could be useful, of user who volunteer to be advocates for others who appear to be subject of bullying? And so there may be a place within Wikipedia where if someone goes to ask for help from a bullying situation, they will be met with a good response, and not more bullying (and blaming the victim) as can sometimes happen if a user themselves goes and seeks protection or help, as i've seen in my experience? Thank you. SageRad ( talk) 14:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   Excellent question, but one that I don't think I have a very positive answer to I am afraid. I know there have been attempts to help with civility and bullying on Wikipedia, I speak of course of the Wikiquette assistance board WP:WQA and the personal attack noticeboard WP:PAIN. WQA was shut down because it became a shouting match between editors that were having a dispute, and PAIN was shut down because it because it became a place for finger-pointing and didn't do any but make situation worse. While I would like to see less bullying and more civility on Wikipedia, I think the idea of dedicating a "task force" to this is going to do more harm than good. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 19:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Thank you for stepping forward; your commitment to serving the community is greatly appreciated.

Please accept my apologies for the lateness of these questions.

2. The en.Wikipedia community has been likened to that of a gaol (US:prison), with members of various gangs aggressively supporting each other in disputes, which are policed by trusted inmates. Do you agree with this view? If so, why so? If not, why not? To what extent are the behaviours which lead to this view enabled by AN/I, AE & ArbCom?

   I wouldn't say that this is a "prison" with gangs that "control" disputes. Reading through how issues are resolved at AN/I and ArbCom, there are editors that tend to have more of a vocal role in disputes. In some cases there can be when ediotrs tend to stick up for each other, however I think this isn't a "prison" mindset, but one of human nature, as people tend to try to stick up for each other. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

4. Do you believe that our current processes & procedures encourage adversarial methods of dispute resolution? If so, is this a good or bad thing? If bad, what role should ArbCom play in addressing this?

   At the moment, I know that the amount of policies and procedures on Wikipedia can be daunting, especially for newer users who are getting familiar with the site. I also know that these can lead to confusion and frustration for editors. However, they are a "necessary evil", as it helps to shape the framework of Wikipedia. The biggest thing with dispute resolution is finding the middle ground to resolve an issue, weighing the facts, and then explaining why an issue is resolved the way it is based of the facts presented. That I feel is whre ArbCom comes in, to be that "voice of reason" that explains why an issue is resolved as it was. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

6. What are the advantages and disadvantages of WP:BOOMERANG? Would you support it's retention, restriction or abolition? Why?

   I think that WP:BOOMERANG is an idea that actually works. I’ve seen where a user will cast an accusation at another user, only to have the focus directed back to them, and with a stiff penalty from what is found. In a way it can help keep from having frivolous complaints launched at editors. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

8. We see regular use of WP:DUCK/WP:SOCK to justify indefinite blocks of new editors entering contentious topic spaces, without those editors being explicitly linked to banned accounts. Is this use justified? If so, why so? If not, why not?

   I believe this needs to be examined on a case-by-case basis, not as a whole. In many cases it’s rather evident that the “new” editor is not truly new, that it’s continuing the same editing patterns and/or habits that the original problematic editor was having. Sometimes a duck really does quack loudly. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

10. In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3#Remedies, ArbCom implemented a "500/30" limit on edits to the Palestine-Israel (the 3rd topic space in which this remedy has been used). What are the positives & negatives of this remedy as written? Would a more technical/formal implementation (akin to semi-protection) be an improvement? What other improvements, if any, might be made?

    I feel that the “500/30” limit in an area such as ARBPIA is a good recommendation. Many of these articles get overloaded with new editors with a specific POV that they want to enforce on the article in question. Having more experienced editors means you may help to limit the SPAs that come specifically to disrupt the articles in question. At the moment, I feel this is a good start to helping maintain some sort of civility and order on these contentious pages. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

12. A hypothetical editor, involved in a contentious topic space, regularly derails Talk page discussion with personal views on the subject, anecdotes of their off-Wiki involvement in the topic, epistemological first principle reasoning for exclusion of material, "hatting" of discussions, and snide attacks on new editors. Administrators have failed to address this editor's behaviour; WP:AE has failed to address the editor's behaviour. What should be done?

    Obviously this is an example of incivility towards other users. It's understood that people aren't always going to be polite or civil, however derailing talk page discussion that is designed to help resolve issues from the start and biting newcomers gives the project as a whole as negative light. I would say that measure would need to be taken to help resolve this, for example if this is related to a specific topic the instituting of a topic ban on the issue may be needed if the editor refuses to cooperate or listen to anyone with regards to their edits. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

14. Would you be prepared to recuse from 1/3rd of cases, and encourage other Arbs to do likewise, so that each case might be addressed faster, and by fewer Arbs?

    If this became a policy or a recommendation for all arbitrators to take, I would be prepared to do so if needed. If I was chosen to serve as an arbitrator, I would ensure that my part within a case would be handled in a timely fashion, as I feel that timeliness and a sense of urgency are important qualities to have when trying to resolve a case. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Many thanks in advance for any answers. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 15:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

2. Do you think you could keep personal opinion aside and act as a neutral arbitrator?

   Yes I do. I think one of the keys to being an effective arbitrator is being able to give a neutral opinion on a matter and decide how to resolve an issue based on the facts that are presented. If you start to bring in personal biases, you then skew the decision in such a way that may not benefit the project. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 13:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Varunr ( talk) 10:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

2. Should people who have undergone frequent and/or serious disciplinary action such as desysopping or numerous blocks be allowed to apply for bureaucratic placements in Wikipedia?

   I feel that if a user has had a number of serious disciplinary issues, such as numerous blocks and the like, this is an indication that they may not have the ability to be an impartial and fair arbitrator. The best example of future behavior is bad behavior I feel. If a user is given the tools to be an admin, then has these tools removed by the community, that can be seen as a black mark against them. However time also plays a factor. If an incident such as this occurred say years ago, and over time this form admin has had a more productive and block-free time on Wikipedia, perhaps that can be seen as a positive. However if its recent, then not it would be too soon. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 21:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply

2. You're practically a nobody. Why did you decide to join this election when this is the first time people have even heard of you?

   I felt that being an "outsider" might be an advantage, as it's a different point of view. Being unknown doesn't bother me much, as I tend to work on cleaning vandal edits, answering questions regarding edits to pages, and making minor adjustments to pages as I see them come up. In some ways I would be a Wikignome I would say. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 21:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply

2. Should ArbCom have more or less power in dealing with administration?

   Right now I think ArbCom deals with administration appropriately. While not every decision will be a popular one, I think ArbCom overall has handled issues with administration adequately. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 21:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply

2. Recently a situation came up where the gender of an editor, which had not been disclosed by the editor anywhere on-wiki, was posted on several pages. The gender of the editor given the nature of their background is a potentially quite sensitive piece of information, with potential real-life implications. With fairly extensive discussion and multiple requests to oversight the information, the decision was made not to oversight the information with the stated reason being that gender does not explicitly fall under any of the English Wikipedia's oversight criteria. In a similar situation, would you support either interpreting the oversight criteria more broadly in general, IAR oversighting a situation like this, rewriting the oversight criteria to be more inclusive, or would you choose to not oversight the information in question? (As background, according to the EFF, the triumvirate of date of birth, zip code, and gender are sufficient to uniquely identify 87% of American citizens.) Kevin Gorman ( talk) 02:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

   I can understand how the release of someone's identity, including gender can be a concern if one wanted to remain as anonymous as possible while editing. This could be doubly so if there was a situation with someone who identified as a gender that they were not biologically born with (such as a person who was transgendered). Reading WP:OS, I think however that gender would fall under the first criteria: such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public. That last section I would feel would fall under the oversight umbrella, given the data that you linked to. I also believe that oversight is something that needs to be looked at in each individual case it may be needed, not as a blanket for every situation. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 14:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

2. linus torvalds created a community of programmers working on the linux kernel 1991. the community grew since then to nowadays 5'000 commits a month, 5 times more than 10 years ago. alone the linux kernel mailing list receives more than 20'000 messages a month, 3 times more than 10 years ago. innovative technologies are added to the kernel first from universities, individuals, companies, bearing the GPL. what do you see as the key success factors of that development, and what can you take off that into your work at wikipedia? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

   That's a rather interesting question you posed here. I will first say I'm not very familiar with the Linux community, so I can't say with full certainty how their community fully operates. However, the growth in Linux is based on a few factors, one more and more people looking to build their own systems, and having an open source OS to do so, secondly the rise of mobile devices using Linux-based technology (after all Android is based of a Linux shell I believe). Growth is part of this from a number of avenues, and community input is used in that growth, much like with Wikipedia. Wikipedia as a whole is only going to grow as the community here allows it. This will require collaboration from all editors, and a way to settle differences quickly, and in the best way possible. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

2. Many editors were unhappy with the results of the recent Neelix fiasco, in which the AC closed the case as soon as Neelix resigned as an admin, despite the fact that many of the issues brought up in the evidence page had nothing whatsoever to do with misuse of administrative tools or even his redirect spam, including building walled gardens and violation of WP guidelines concerning advocacy in editing. This led to accusations of a double standard for admins and regular editors. (If a non-admin had done the same, there could be no such easy dismissal as we don't have tools to resign). Neelix never acknowledged or agreed to stop any of this behavior, simply (eventually) apologized for the redirects only and then later resigned with no further comment. There was significant support for at least a topic ban at the ANI. Do you believe a topic ban or other measure should have been applied in this case?

   I'm going to refer back to an answer I gave for a previous question related to this issue, which I thought answers this quite well: Administrators are chosen by their peers on Wikipedia to help foster an environment for all to collaborate and work cohesively. In that respect I feel that administrators need to be held to a higher standard when it comes to their practices on the site. The actions of the admin that was at the heart of the case listed in your linked performed actions that if it was a user with no admin rights would have been blocked, or possibly banned. Just stripping the admin rights away from an admin to me isn’t enough. Each act needs to be evaluated as if it was a user without admin rights. If the actions would warrant a specific penalty for a standard user, then this should apply across the board, especially with someone chosen to be a “face” of Wikipedia as an administrator. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 13:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello everyone, and nice to meet you all. I'm Wildthing61476 and I have been an editor on Wikipedia now for close to 10 years. My time here on Wikipedia is spent more with cleaning up vandalism or making corrections to articles where they may need to be done. I have focused more on editing articles about topics I'm quite familiar with, such as articles regarding the Baltimore and Maryland areas. I do comment on WP:ANI from time to time, and have read through some previous ArbCom committee rulings to get a better understanding of what is required as a member of ArbCom.

I feel that I would be an asset as a member of ArbCom, as I consider myself to be level headed, and I am able to critically review an issue and give an honest estimation on that issue based on the facts. I can, and believe I have proven, that I can remain neutral, and not let personal opinion fly in the face of what an issue is presented. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 18:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply