User talk:Ral315/Archive 28

edit History Archives: Dec. 04 to Feb. 06 Mar. 06 to Feb. 07 Feb. 07 to May. 08 Jun. 08 to Present 2004-2005: 01 · 02 · 03 · 04 · 05 · 06 · 07 · 08 2006: 09 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 2007: 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 2008: 29 · 30 · 31 · 32

WTHN

Cool. , Dlohcierekim 13:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psssst.

Hi Ral, just letting you know, you've missed off OTRS and the mediation committee off my ArbCom candidacy signpost profile. Can you take a look at it? Ryan Postlethwaite 13:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Ral, I'd have changed it myself but didn't want to tread on your toes, thanks for fixing it. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost report

Phil Sandifer is an arbcom clerk too, albeit an inactive one. Since Newyorkbrad's clerk status is mentioned at "Local Rights", Phil's probably should be too (even though I wouldn't classify clerking as a "right" or "permission" myself). Picaroon (t) 23:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Signpost coverage of ArbCom elections

I'd think including a message box linking users to this page in the candidate statements and voting pages would be appropriate, since it provides more information about the candidates. What do you think? Would you be willing to include one? - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 02:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 03:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Friendly note

Okay, thanks for bringing it to my notice Ral. Just to explain, I initially removed the section as I saw it was not at all backed by the citations given, and said so clearly in my edit summery, which was

"entire original research. None of the citations mention a "controversy""

I didn't believe it needed further explanation on the talk page.

User:Taprobanus then undid my edit, without any explanation, either in the edit summery or talk page. As you know, when you undo an edit you clearly see the edit summery given by the previous editor, and he decided to simply ignore it and undo my edit, simply adding his extremely POV, uncited section back. It certainly was not a good faith edit, and I saw that as vandalism, pure and simple, and reverted it as such. I still stand by that, do you think it was a mistake? --snowolfD4 ^( talk / @ ) 04:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and could you tell me where other administrators discussed this, so I can explain my edit there? --snowolfD4 ^( talk / @ ) 04:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah never mind. I just stalked your edits and found the AN/I post :) --snowolfD4 ^( talk / @ ) 04:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and I'll try to use edit summaries in such instances.

However the fact that User:Sebastianhelm and User:Rlevse chose to ignore Taprabanuses edit go through all this about my edit summery, just continues their one sided approach to the editing of article related to Sri Lanka. The last two entries on my block log say a lot about that. And User:Rlevse and has now threatened to block me if I make any edits to a Sri Lanka related article, which I find totally unfair and in complete bad faith. --snowolfD4 ^( talk / @ ) 04:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost interview with Brion

Just out of curiousity, what ever happened to that interview? Dovi (talk) 06:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

Thank you for your questions. I have however decided to withdraw my nomination as I do not think I am ready. Thank you however for taking the time to ask me those questions. Regards, LordHarris (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

Hello Ral. I just thought I'd inform you I am standing in for The Placebo Effect on the next two F&A posts, which will be running on the 3rd and 10th December. If you have any other questions, or want to know more about my experience on Wikipedia, just leave a note on my talk page. Thanks. Best, — Rudget _{contributions} 20:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-11-26/Arbitration_report Please adjust for NPOV. Highly slanted. Durova^Charge! 22:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

ArbCom questions User:Jeepday

1. What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?

   I am an editor currently not holding any advanced positions, but I am a founding member of the Wikiproject Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles, the goal of this project is to ensure that articles meet at least the barest minimum of verifiability, by including at least one reliable published (online or offline) reference.

2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

   First: because there was an add posted asking for self nomination and the field for 5 positions was fairly small. Second: I think I have a lot of problem solving skills and experience to bring to the position.

3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

   I read about them in the Wikipedia Signpost and sometimes take a closer look.

4. In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?

   I have no opinion on past arbitration cases. I did not follow any close enough to feel that I have all the facts available. Neither did I fully research all the appropriate references and policy as they stood when any specific arbitration was active.

5. Why do you think users should vote for you?

   I have a long history on Wikipedia of reading policy, being active, and wadding into discuss about it; starting with conversations that can been seen here Talk:Off-road vehicle/Archive 1 in "Edward Abbey qoute" a learning experience when I was new (two weeks) and in "Build a criticism section" an application of joint venture involving differing perspectives months later. From some of the questions I am getting here and in my Questions for the candidate I am guessing that there is some strife in the community about arbitration committee actions, I did not nominate myself to swing that strife in one direction or the other. I am asking users to vote for me because I want to help Wikipedians who bring a problem to the committee to find solutions that are within the bounds of Wikipedia policy.

Jeepday (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

User:Ral315/WTHN

		The Surreal Barnstar
		For creating this essay.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 04:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost F&A

I've took on the F&A part of the signpost for the next two weeks, but I won't be unable to access the computer tomorrow (when the delivery occurs) until around 15:30pm (GMT, Wikipedia time), and so won't be able to update any de-features etc that happen between 22:00pm tonight and the time mentioned before. Any suggestions? Best, — Rudget _{contributions} 12:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current version of events can be see here. — Rudget _{contributions} 15:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom questions

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.

1. What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?

   I've been an admin since December 2005. I've dealt/been dealing w/ informal mediations as the Sri Lankan/LTTE conflict resolution, Western Sahara/Morocco conflict mediation, music-related disputes, etc. -- FayssalF - ^Wiki me up® 21:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

   The ArbCom needs some fresh air and more efficiency and i think that part of my work at Wikipedia was helping many users in terms of editing, resolving conflicts, etc. I believe therefore that many users can trust me making this place a better one in a neutral and fair manner coupled w/ much patience. -- FayssalF - ^Wiki me up® 21:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

   Yes. It was Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren as an involved admin... i was the one who had blocked User:Digwuren and User:Petri Krohn for 1 week back on July. Both users were banned for 1 year by the ArbCom 3 months later. -- FayssalF - ^Wiki me up® 21:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?

   Not one in particular so far. Maybe i am not aware of all the ArbCom cases but if you got one in mind you can mention it and i'd give you my clear opinion on it. However, there's only one small concern which comes to my mind...it is the process of appeals. It is still ill-organized and this is an area where i'd help at by proposing that all involved parties in the case should be present at the appeal to express their opinions. There were some cases where people were permitted to get back editing by the ArbCom w/o informing users who were involved in the case in the first place. -- FayssalF - ^Wiki me up® 21:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Why do you think users should vote for you?

   Reading through my talk page one would notice that too many users trust my admin judgements and i believe they would still support and trust me at the ArbCom. -- FayssalF - ^Wiki me up® 21:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond on my talk page. If you can get your answers in as soon as possible, I'll try to ensure that they're in the candidate guide as quickly as I can -- hopefully before the elections start. Thanks, Ral315 » 23:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Arbcom Questions

1. What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?

I'm an admin. I also have oversight and checkuser access, as a former arbitrator, and I'm currently serving as one of three checkuser ombudspersons, with responsibility for investigating complaints about privacy policy violations.

2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

I ran for the committee the first time around because I felt that the committee was dysfunctional, and that this was affecting the capacity of the project to do what it's supposed to do: write an encyclopedia. I was elected to help reform the committee then, but alas, I feel that three years later, we're in the same position. As someone on the arbcom mailing list (as an arbitrator emeritus), I feel that the current committee has lost sight of the goal of writing encyclopedia, and gotten out of touch with the broader community. I also feel that some of their deliberations have at times over the past few months been a little bit bizarre. I'm also frustrated with the continuing failure of successive committees to keep the backlog down. It just isn't good enough to take one or two months to deal with a case - as such, if elected, I'll be working to ensure the committee runs a lot more efficiently than it has been. Rebecca 23:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

Aside from the cases I handled as an arbitrator, they've been two that come to mind. The first, Rex071404, was way back in 2004 - he was the editor who was pretty much singlehandedly responsible for keeping all our articles about the Kerry campaign protected in the leadup to the 2004 US presidential election. I was one of numerous editors who had tried to keep him in line - I believe he later left after repeated arbitration sanctions.

The second case was, I believe last year, concerning a couple of Australian political figures who decided to try and use Wikipedia to smear their opponents. I spent some time keeping said smears out of the articles, and both users were banned for a period and subsequently left.

4. In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?

As I said in my answers to various people's questions, I'm generally reluctant to express opinions on specific cases. I think the committee often does a good job of trying to untangle some pretty complex situations: if I had to give one example, I'd probably say the Highways case was one of these. As for the second question, I'm explicitly not going to answer this one, because most of the cases where I've disagreed with the current committee's handling have the potential to come before the committee again.

5. Why do you think users should vote for you?

I've been around the traps for a long time. I've been an arbitrator before, and I did that at a time, like now, when the committee was in a position of needing to reform itself to maintain the trust of the community. Beyond that, however, I am frustrated with the current committee's tendency to treat itself as a supreme bureaucracy, rather than a dispute resolution body that exists for the sole purpose of supporting the project in its mission to actually write an encyclopedia; if you would like to see the committee regain that focus, please consider a vote for me. Finally, if elected, I will - as I did last time - actually keep up to date with cases. I believe that arbitrators should not have to be nagged by clerks to actually do the job they were elected to do, so if elected I will be working to keep the committee running efficiently, rather than drawing to a standstill as it so often has over the years. Rebecca 23:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry these are so late, I have had rather a lot to deal with recently.

1. What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?

   None so far, I have hitherto always concentrated on main-space edits.

2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

   Because I have experience on both sides of the fence, and have often presented evidence at cases and felt I could see certain flaws in the system which I would be able to address.

3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

   <Hhohohoho>I'm sure everyone knows the answer to that one.

4. In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?

   I thought they dealt with the immensely complex "Trouble" RFARB extremely we;; and of course I thought the most recently Durova case was very poorly handled.

5. Why do you think users should vote for you?

   Because I care deeply for this project and am anxious top see it have a leadership worthy of its editors.

Giano 17:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Ippolito

I noticed the page for Joseph Ippolito has been deleted but can't figure out why. Please inform. Thank you NicoleIpp 14:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manning Bartlett's ArbCom Answers

What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?

I have been an admin since the admin role was first created, somewhere around Dec 01 or Jan 02. I have never sought any other position until this election.

Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

Every year I have looked at the elections and felt I owed that service, but it took me until now to be certain I was willing to totally commit to the role. I have no doubt I am perfect for the role, having been here for so long and being so grounded in the core principles of WP. However being an arbitrator is not fun, and to do the job properly means giving up a great deal of the "enjoyable" side of being a Wikipedian. It frequently involves trawling through thousands and thousands of words which are loaded with bias, invective and outrageous self-righteousness, trying to glean the truth. So the decision to take on being an Arbitrator and give up so much of what maked Wikipedia a joyful experience was one that took me a long time to come to.

Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

Never. I have however watched many cases very closely, particularly some of the early ones where some core policies were derived as a result. I elected to completely refrain from participation in the Ed Poor/Maveric149 debacle, which took considerable self-control. (I had my own conflicts with Ed Poor along the way).

In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?

At the risk of sounding "insufficiently controversial", on the whole I think the ArbCom has performed admirably this year. I do have a few issues around the timeliness of reaching a decision after the evidence gathering phase had concluded. I have discussed this at length in my "question" response to east718. Of course ArbCom has not always performed flawlessly, but I think its membership to-date has always held the best interests of Wikipedia to their hearts.

Why do you think users should vote for you?

If I was to create a campaign slogan (which I won't) it would be "I still believe". Wikipedia has been a part of my life for over six years, and I love it with a deep, abiding passion. Having said that, if I was not elected I would still be perfectly content. Despite my long participation at WP I have never really sought attention or "positions of power" in any way. I only decided to run for the office simply because I know I would make an excellent ArbCom member (for reasons outlined in my candidacy statement).

However, being an arbitrator is possibly the most thankless role there is, and the only reason to run for the position is because of a deep and abiding commitment/belief in the purpose and mission of Wikipedia. If I am elected then I will serve to the utmost of my ability and with passion, absolute diligence and commitment. If I am not elected to serve, then my sense of personal honour will be satisfied by the fact that at least I offered, and I will continue going about things in my quiet way.

Timestamp. Ral315 (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Received Wikipedia Signpost

Thanks for sending me my first edition of the wikipedia signpost, it took me the last few days to confirm that i can receive it, but anyway thanks. SKYNET X1000 18:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

History-only undelete DRVNote

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of tools for static code analysis. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Verdatum (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Arbcom Elections

Hi Ral315. I noticed you changed your vote on my arbitration committee candidacy, apparently on the basis that I'd "voted against my opponents". I have voted in every election thusfar, and since I care about who gets elected, whether it be who I serve with if elected, or who would do the job if I don't, I don't see any good reason not to vote. As such, I support the candidates I believe would do a good job - who, unsurprisingly, are pretty much the same candidates that everyone else has supported. Perhaps the two people I most strongly endorsed are the two people that, at this point, I'm looking most likely to lose to. I explained this in an addition to my candidate statement, but I'm pretty frustrated that people still seem to be taking my having voted as some sort of campaign tactic without having looked at who I voted for. Rebecca (talk) 07:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F&A

Available here. — Rudget _speak.work 14:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I see you won't be able to publish until about 02:00 (UTC) in the planning room, do you want any other organisation help? Working pages etc, I've got the answers for the Wikiproject section and F&A is ready. Drop me a line, if you're interested. — Rudget _{Contributions} 19:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 10 Signpost

Hey, is everything ok? Do you need help with publishing this week's issue? enochlau (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recall of Mercury

You are requesting this recall. He's decided to use User:Mercury/Recall as the page for processing the request. I think you made your request for recall on his talk page before this opened up. Could you be so kind as to add there (either by diff to the original request or a current description) your reasons for requesting recall? Thanks. GRBerry 22:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the opposers in my RfA

I would like to apologise for my intemperate comments during the Melsaran affair. I accept that I should have expressed myself more civilly, and should have waited for the ArbCom to explain themselves rather than jumping to conclusions and condemning them. I can honestly say that I regret my reaction.

In my defence, I would like to reiterate that I did not use the admin tools in any way in relation to the Melsaran affair. I am completely aware that it would be a very bad idea to wheel-war with ArbCom, and I can honestly say that I would never do so.

For what it's worth, I genuinely don't dislike the ArbCom. I respect the fact that they have to make tough decisions, and I understand that sometimes these decisions must be made in secret. It is true that I have a natural aversion to authority and secrecy; this is part of my character. But in future I will do my best to treat the arbitrators with more respect and to assume good faith on their part.

I served this community for seven months as an administrator, with very little criticism. I believe that I can continue to help Wikipedia by serving as an administrator. I ask you to look at the beneficial contributions I've made to the encyclopedia; I believe that the good I can do outweighs the problems with my somewhat combative nature.

Please give me a second chance. Walton^One 14:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA support

Hi, a little confusion seems to be being caused by your support here. Just to clarify that User:Elonka is someone completely separate from User:Durova, the former administrator who recently resigned over a bad block. If you have a second to clarify that you did intend to support the individual who is presently on RfA that would be great... WjBscribe 16:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost Report on ANI

Hi. I am considering doing a report on new issues that have came up on the noticeboards (ANI, AIV etc). If you could get back to me, so I can work on next weeks if I need to. -- Whiteandnerdy111 (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

*Boink*

You've got mail :) ( arky ) 03:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

My bad. I hadn't really noticed it was a single user's work so far. Circeus (talk) 05:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delivery of Signpost

Although my user is on the signpost delivery list would you please deliver it to the talk page as requested on the list, the previous delivery had it placed on my userpage and talk page, in the future please place next issues of the signpost on the talk page only and not the userpage. SKYNET X7000 (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Question

Hi, I was wondering if it could be mentioned somewhere in the next signpost that we now have 500 current FLs. And in case you want to add which one is the 500th, it was List of Green Bay Packers first-round draft picks. -- Scorpion^0422 22:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

NPOV in Signpost

Hmm, I intentionally wrote it in an editorialised format, away from my usual stiff tone in ITN. I know Wikipedia has a NPOV policy, but being a community "newspaper" of sorts, is it not ok to give opinions on things, just like a newspaper would do? enochlau (talk) 11:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your comment on the talk page. I guess there is merit in keeping some consistency, but at the same time, I'm sure that an article written in an editorial format wouldn't hurt, because it is not in the article space. In this particular case, there is an argument against writing it in summary format because people can just read Knol. I would suggest that in future that you allow us to put our case forward for the benefits of an NPOV editorial in certain cases? But I'll leave it your call as editor. enochlau (talk) 11:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could I get your thoughts on this please? Thanks. enochlau (talk) 07:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fr Wikiquote link in Signpost

Hey, I have taken the liberty of correcting the link to the French Wikiquote in the Signpost today as the original returned a 404. Just so you know :) Oh, and by the way - thanks for the Signpost, I read it every week! Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 12:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost by email?

Hi Ral315. I am trying to figure out how to get the Signpost delivered to me by email, rather than on my talk page. I finally found that on 11/13 you yourself removed some of the text on how to do that. Is this service then currently unavailable? Are there any plans for it in the future? There are some remaining references to email here that should probably be removed. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 22:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this link no longer operative? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The service is unavailable. Ral315 (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Signpost disclaimer

I just had a little exchange with JGHowes on our talk pages about your editor's note, which you may want to be aware of. --Michael Snow (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of some help, cheers JGHowes ^talk - 20:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thanks

Thanks for maintaining the Signpost. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Reagan

I would like to thank you and whomever else was involved in the decision to place Nancy Reagan on Wikipedia's main page for December 24. I've worked extensively on the article, got it promoted to GA and finally FA; it is a personal accomplishment for me to soon be able to see that article on the main page. I am curious as to how it was chosen, however.

I also got her husband, President Ronald Reagan, to FA back in August and plan on nominating it for the main page on February 6 (the anniversary of his birthday). Do I just place it here sometime during January? Thanks again, Happyme22 (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and sorry for the mixup. Happyme22 (talk) 20:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 04:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Features and Admins

Thanks for doing it again for me this week, I was about to get to it. Is that the new format you want to be used for de-featured articles/lists ect...? Also, I will be contacting Bot Makers soon to try to make a bot to automate the process of writing the article. This would still have same editor oversight just to check it and work out the new section you made. Is that OK? The Placebo Effect (talk) 05:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

feel free to move this elsewhere...

		The Resilient Barnstar
		This barnstar "...may be given to any editor who learns and improves from criticisms, never lets mistakes or blunders impede their growth as Wikipedians..." I hereby award you the Resilient Barnstar for your forthright comments about the AFD and DRV of the Angela Beesley article. Keep up the good work, and thank you. VanTucky ^talk 04:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo's statement in Signpost

Please see User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Within_You_Without_You in which Jimbo acknowledges using the wrong word in his statement. Presumably you are the person of whom permission should be asked to change it? I see someone has already edited the Signpost statement to include a "sic" after the word, but it would be "cleaner" just to use the word that Jimbo meant to use in the first place. 6SJ7 (talk) 06:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Just a note about {{ArbitrationCommitteeChartRecent}}; I was appointed to Dmcdevit's seat, not a new seat. The old version reflected that; I can't figure out how to fix it. Mackensen (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You and Mercury

I just noticed User:Ral315. Hadn't noticed that until now, though I noticed the recall going on. Just thought you might want to know that the links don't really work now, as half the pages got deleted... I considered looking at the deleted revisions, but then thought better of it. That's not really what the tools are for. Though there might be a question of whether the pages should have been deleted in the first place. Good to see the apology though. Not enough people do that around here. Carcharoth (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see what Mercury did now. The OTRS ticket numbers were confusing me. Carcharoth (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mercury 's interview

1. What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?

   First and always, I'm an editor. I also do some janitorial work for the project. I indirectly help by answering emails

   sent to the wikipedia/wikimedia email addresses via the OTRS system.

2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

   I've done some dispute resolution, and I have what it takes to arbitrate. I'm on every day, and I know I would like the work.

3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

   No real involvement. I have produced evidence in #:Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson after a failed #:mediation. I'm a party to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings currently.

4. In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they #handled poorly?

   I won't question the arbiters. They do hard work, and since I'm on the outside looking in, I don't have all the information.

5. Why do you think users should vote for you?

   I know the system, I have the aptitude, and I'm available.

Thank you for asking. If you would like to do an interactive one on one interview, let me know!

Timestamp. Ral315 (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Миша13's interview

1. What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?

   I'm just a plain (yet perhaps not-so-average) administrator.

2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

   Short and simple, I believe the Committee would benefit from my judgment as well as the CheckUser backlogs could use another pair of hands.

3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

   Hardly, as I am of the observing types, commenting only occasionally (might've put a "statement by uninvolved ..." on one or two occasions).

4. In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?

   Neither. I wouldn't question any decisions made (not only not to undermine the Committee's authority, but mainly because I don't feel any of them were blatantly missed to my heart) but neither would classify them as handled "exceptionally well", as due to the Committee being undermanned, the decisions are not always arrived upon as timely as one could wish for.

5. Why do you think users should vote for you?

   Again plain and simple, because I'm a reasonable and trusty guy. :-)

Thanks, Миша13 21:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timestamp. Ral315 (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]