Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/2011 appointments/Bahamut0013

Bahamut0013
I have submitted my candidacy because I believe that the oversight of the most sensitive aspects of the project and its volunteers requires editors of the utmost trustworthiness and judgment. I am well-equipped to handle that level of trust with wisdom and discretion, while upholding the policies and guidelines established by the community. The faith the government has in my ability to handle security and privacy matters should demonstrate to the community that they would be correct to trust in my talents & abilities, which also include as my demonstrated maturity, sense of justice, effective communication and collaboration skills, and diplomacy. I am in good standing with the community, and have a working professional rapport with many members of the Arbitration Committee, allowing me to be so bold as to predict few hurdles in Wikipedia relationships. I firmly believe that amongst what are sure to be many excellent candidates, I could stand out as among the best.
 * Nomination statement (250 words max.)

I'd also like to thank the committee for letting me get to this stage. I'm familiar with three of the other candidates, and personally feel that being lumped into such good company is a compliment in and of itself.

Standard questions for all candidates
Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.
 * My experience dates back to my first anon edit in 2005, and the registration of my account in early 2007. I've grown tremendously as an editor since then, and the recent changes in my personal life have made me tend to take a more gnomish approach to article work, while I've broadened my participation in the behind-the-scenes aspects of editing on Wikipedia more in the last two years. Like any other editor, I've had my share of conflicts with others, and while I'm certainly imperfect, I believe that I've learned how to handle them with grace and discretion.

Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.
 * I've proudly displayed my military affiliation (as well as my real name for transparency) on my user page for almost as long as I've had an account. I have an active security clearance, which should prove the level of trust endowed into my integrity. My occuaption also requires me to "endure" annual training on privacy, security, OPSEC, information awareness (the so-called e-security that entails things like passwords, phishing, etc.), and other mundane but important concepts, such as suicide prevention. Despite the stereotype of military guys (especially Marines) as dumb and aggressive, I believe my service has allowed me to become a more eloquent person, capable of handling conflict, displaying initiative, creative thinking, and leadership skills that would hurt my principals of modesty to expand upon. I also have significant skills with computers, data manipulation, and analysis, as this is generally the core of my duties. And, I should note, that I'm writing this after getting off of a 36-hour sentry shift (with two hours of nap time), which I believe proves that even lack of sleep doesn't impair my contributions or dedication to the project.

Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?
 * I currently only have user rights for rollback, autopatrol, IP block exemption (due to the high rate of vandalism from my work computer), and reviwer )I don't think I've ever used this recent changes permission, as it remains controversial as to implementation). I did consider volunteering for OTRS, but was discouraged by another volunteer. I generally don't edit on other projects much except Commons, where I have no special permissions.

Questions for this candidate

 * Question from NuclearWarfare
 * If I am not mistaken, you are friends with User:Jennavecia, who was desysopped some months (years?) ago for knowing that Law was a sockpuppet of a blocked user and failing to report it (Gross oversimplification, but I imagine you are familiar with the situation) . Did you also know that Law was a sockpuppet of The undertow? NW ( Talk ) 01:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Somewhat. I met Lara during the Meetup/Raleigh about this time last year, which was several months after the sock scandal (and I was only very vaguely familiar with it until I looked it up just now). Our friendship is probably better described as "acquantainceship" anyway; she's not very active on-wiki, and I haven't checked my Facebook account in months (the only off-wiki venue of communication for us). I don't think I've ever met The undertow under any of his various names. Were you merely asking my involvement (which was zero), or did you also want to know my thoughts on the scandal?
 * This question makes me a tad nervous that there might be guilt by association feelings (not saying that was your intent). I know that the BRC has a few members that are less than wholly savory to many other editors, and that the Raleigh Meetup put me in contact with a few other folks who are held in less than the highest esteem by the community. However, I'd like to make it clear that simply because I know or am friendly with some individuals that have made mistakes in the past, that doesn't impugn my ability to maintain integrity. Most of my on-wiki "friends" have gone more or less inactive, so I try to keep a professional distance with other editors now.  bahamut0013  words deeds 14:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine. I had thought that you also knew The_undertow, but I guess I was mistaken. Thanks for the response. So far as guilt-by-association goes; don't worry. My "vote", as it were, would really not have been affected by your response so long as you gave a truthful answer, though of course I can't speak for the rest of the community. I was just wondering what your involvement with the situation was. NW ( Talk ) 14:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I can back up what he was saying here. In fact, Jennavecia doesn't even like him. We spent the entire weekend bitching about his haircut in Australian Sign Language while informing him we were engaging in interpretative dance. Also, less than savoury? Thanks! Ironholds (talk) 08:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I could be less polite about you, Ollie, but then I lose brownie points at the polls. :'( Besides, you never submitted a photo for the BRC, so I guess that "unsavory" bit doesn't really apply to you by default (though I can single you out if you like).  bahamut0013  words deeds 11:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments

 * Comments may also be submitted in confidence to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing 


 * Support appointment, I don’t always agree with Bahamut0013, but I do respect his point of view, his commitment to Wikipedia & his trustworthiness as an editor. I have worked around him for a few years now & believe this candidate will show fairness in arbitrating disputes.  Most importantly, as a Sergeant of Marines, he lives by core values of honor, courage & commitment.  Semper Fi, FieldMarine (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Trustworthy, hardworking, reasonable. Gets my approval. Ironholds (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support if for no other reason than his decision not to work anonymously. That speaks volumes about accepting personal responsibility for one's own actions, which is enough to inspire confidence in its own right.  I did some checking of his activities and see nothing to make me doubt his worthiness.  I'm not a military man, but Semper Fidelis to you, Yank.   Peter S Strempel Page &#124; Talk 10:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)