I'm Ral315; I've been a user since November 2004, began editing in December 2004, and became an administrator in September 2005. I'm running for Arbitration Committee for one simple reason: Because I want to help.
The proceedings of the Arbitration Committee have always interested me, since I first joined Wikipedia. Lately, the Committee has been having a very tough time handling its caseloads. I applaud all remaining Committee members for being able to stick through all the burnout that inevitably happens when dealing with so many disputes. I also applaud all members running for Arbitration Committee this year; anyone willing to run for such a time-consuming position must either be extraordinarily dedicated, or insane. From what I've been told, I belong to the latter group.
In all seriousness, the Arbitration Committee serves an important purpose on Wikipedia: Settling disputes between users, and more often, doling out punishmentsappropriate remedies to unruly users. Such a position needs a strong, unbiased user. I feel that I can fulfill these requirements. I do not plan to decide cases based on my personal beliefs, nor on any other user's personal beliefs. Cases should be decided on the merits of the case alone. Too often, both inside Wikipedia and in the real world, problems are decided on personal beliefs and biases. I will keep bias out of my decisions if I am elected to the Arbitration Committee.
Another part of being an Arbitration Committee member is being available to the community. I am regularly available on Wikimedia IRC channels, and I always try to respond to messages left at my
e-mail address and on my
talk page.
Finally, I think that to be an effective Arbitration Committee member, one mustn't take arbitration too seriously. The main goal of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia. The only reason that the Arbitration Committee should ever punishenact remedies against a user is if the user is so disruptive that corrective action is needed.
If you have any questions that I might help answer, please feel free to leave a message on my
talk page, and I will try to answer it as soon as I can.
Ral315WS 03:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Trifon Triantafillidis does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 09:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC) and he had only 26 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (
caveats) —
Cryptic(talk) 15:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
I should point out my vote would have been a strong support anyway, with or without the opposition.
the wub"?!"RFR - a good idea? 17:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong support I oppose ageism, but
Ral315's vocally-ageist opposition is not the reason for my vote; his dedication is.
Euphoria 16:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Shows good sense despite young age. --
kingboyk 18:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Support Been a very positive contributor to areas of the project which I frequent. --
OntarioQuizzer 19:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Given appalling behaviour by certain adults around here, denying Ral315 a chance based on age seems rather dubious.
TenOfAllTrades(
talk) 02:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. A very positive contributor. --
Eleassarmy talk 19:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support all users matching the regexp /Ra[u]?l\d\d\d/. Oh, and for real non-silly reasons too. -
Fennec(はさばくのきつね) 05:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support more mature than many older editors, and some new blood is needed on Arbcom. Only reservation is "punishment" terminology; goal of process should be protection of the project, never punishment per se.
CarbonCopy(talk) 20:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Would probably do a good job. --
G Rutter 20:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. I am the one who initially nominated Ral315 for adminship, and his RfA was a clear success. Even though Ral315 is much younger than me he is doing a phenomenal job at Wikipedia. I was amazed he wanted to take up the responsibility of being in ArbCom, but if he wants, I will gladly support him. —
JIP |
Talk 21:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support While the candidate doesn't explicitly mention arbitration strategies, the content of their candidate statement directly addresses the nature and function of the arbitration process.
Fifelfoo 22:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Andre (
talk) 14:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, his statement overcomes any concerns I may have had with their experience. —
Ian MankaQuestions? Talk to me! 22:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Weak support. Civil and constructive, my only concern is relative lack of experience.
Zocky 11:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - good policy. --
NorkNork 21:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
User did not have 150 edits as of 00:01 January 9, so may not have suffrage. (Bringing this matter up on the talk page, since if including January 9, user has more than 150 edits.)
Flcelloguy (
A note?) 23:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Weak support - I wouldn't normally recommend someone so young take on this role however his statement seems satisfactory. --
Francs2000 00:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Statement and answers overcome my concerns about lack of experience. --
William Pietri 01:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Seems well adjusted, balanced, and neutral, based on responses to questions (see the questions link in the statement section).. --
Victim of signature fascism |
help remove biblecruft 18:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Seems determined to do the job right. Any hesitation I had is over shadowed by a long history of good contributions. Appears to have more than enough wiki experience regardless of age. He's half my age, and twice as mature. --
Omniwolf 20:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support.-
gadfium 23:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Good candidate. Down with agism!
Borisblue 23:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support --
Angr (
tɔk) 17:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose
Good user, but a couple of the answers to questions concern me, and I'd rather he focused on keeping us with our regular Signpost fix.
Ambi 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Some questions, particuarly regarding age, concern me. I hope this does not come accross as patronising; it wasn't meant to.
Batmanand 01:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose based on experience.
JYolkowski //
talk 01:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose too young --
Angelo 01:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose sad to oppose this one, answers to questions however make me too unsure of where candidate would stand.
ALKIVAR™ 13:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose Crunch and Grace Note's age-ist votes, but also oppose bcz I can't see a single reason to support. Statements read nicely, but all I see is a façade. Pretty icing on a styrofoam cake.
Tomertalk 14:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose, statement is too frivolous and seems to self-contradict in a few spots.
Radiant_>|< 14:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose, inexperienced.
HGB 19:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose, for similar reasons to those already expressed.
Rje 19:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose for fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of ArbCom. It's purpose is not punishment.
Unfocused 00:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose(Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) -
Mailer Diablo 01:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose Mature Wikipedian with well thought out policy (or a lot of BS). But I must Oppose because of his answers to the questions which reveal how unready he is. --
Rmrfstar 04:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
I'm Ral315; I've been a user since November 2004, began editing in December 2004, and became an administrator in September 2005. I'm running for Arbitration Committee for one simple reason: Because I want to help.
The proceedings of the Arbitration Committee have always interested me, since I first joined Wikipedia. Lately, the Committee has been having a very tough time handling its caseloads. I applaud all remaining Committee members for being able to stick through all the burnout that inevitably happens when dealing with so many disputes. I also applaud all members running for Arbitration Committee this year; anyone willing to run for such a time-consuming position must either be extraordinarily dedicated, or insane. From what I've been told, I belong to the latter group.
In all seriousness, the Arbitration Committee serves an important purpose on Wikipedia: Settling disputes between users, and more often, doling out punishmentsappropriate remedies to unruly users. Such a position needs a strong, unbiased user. I feel that I can fulfill these requirements. I do not plan to decide cases based on my personal beliefs, nor on any other user's personal beliefs. Cases should be decided on the merits of the case alone. Too often, both inside Wikipedia and in the real world, problems are decided on personal beliefs and biases. I will keep bias out of my decisions if I am elected to the Arbitration Committee.
Another part of being an Arbitration Committee member is being available to the community. I am regularly available on Wikimedia IRC channels, and I always try to respond to messages left at my
e-mail address and on my
talk page.
Finally, I think that to be an effective Arbitration Committee member, one mustn't take arbitration too seriously. The main goal of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia. The only reason that the Arbitration Committee should ever punishenact remedies against a user is if the user is so disruptive that corrective action is needed.
If you have any questions that I might help answer, please feel free to leave a message on my
talk page, and I will try to answer it as soon as I can.
Ral315WS 03:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Trifon Triantafillidis does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 09:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC) and he had only 26 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (
caveats) —
Cryptic(talk) 15:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
I should point out my vote would have been a strong support anyway, with or without the opposition.
the wub"?!"RFR - a good idea? 17:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong support I oppose ageism, but
Ral315's vocally-ageist opposition is not the reason for my vote; his dedication is.
Euphoria 16:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Shows good sense despite young age. --
kingboyk 18:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Support Been a very positive contributor to areas of the project which I frequent. --
OntarioQuizzer 19:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Given appalling behaviour by certain adults around here, denying Ral315 a chance based on age seems rather dubious.
TenOfAllTrades(
talk) 02:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. A very positive contributor. --
Eleassarmy talk 19:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support all users matching the regexp /Ra[u]?l\d\d\d/. Oh, and for real non-silly reasons too. -
Fennec(はさばくのきつね) 05:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support more mature than many older editors, and some new blood is needed on Arbcom. Only reservation is "punishment" terminology; goal of process should be protection of the project, never punishment per se.
CarbonCopy(talk) 20:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Would probably do a good job. --
G Rutter 20:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. I am the one who initially nominated Ral315 for adminship, and his RfA was a clear success. Even though Ral315 is much younger than me he is doing a phenomenal job at Wikipedia. I was amazed he wanted to take up the responsibility of being in ArbCom, but if he wants, I will gladly support him. —
JIP |
Talk 21:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support While the candidate doesn't explicitly mention arbitration strategies, the content of their candidate statement directly addresses the nature and function of the arbitration process.
Fifelfoo 22:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Andre (
talk) 14:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, his statement overcomes any concerns I may have had with their experience. —
Ian MankaQuestions? Talk to me! 22:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Weak support. Civil and constructive, my only concern is relative lack of experience.
Zocky 11:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - good policy. --
NorkNork 21:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
User did not have 150 edits as of 00:01 January 9, so may not have suffrage. (Bringing this matter up on the talk page, since if including January 9, user has more than 150 edits.)
Flcelloguy (
A note?) 23:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Weak support - I wouldn't normally recommend someone so young take on this role however his statement seems satisfactory. --
Francs2000 00:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Statement and answers overcome my concerns about lack of experience. --
William Pietri 01:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Seems well adjusted, balanced, and neutral, based on responses to questions (see the questions link in the statement section).. --
Victim of signature fascism |
help remove biblecruft 18:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Seems determined to do the job right. Any hesitation I had is over shadowed by a long history of good contributions. Appears to have more than enough wiki experience regardless of age. He's half my age, and twice as mature. --
Omniwolf 20:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support.-
gadfium 23:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Good candidate. Down with agism!
Borisblue 23:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support --
Angr (
tɔk) 17:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose
Good user, but a couple of the answers to questions concern me, and I'd rather he focused on keeping us with our regular Signpost fix.
Ambi 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Some questions, particuarly regarding age, concern me. I hope this does not come accross as patronising; it wasn't meant to.
Batmanand 01:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose based on experience.
JYolkowski //
talk 01:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose too young --
Angelo 01:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose sad to oppose this one, answers to questions however make me too unsure of where candidate would stand.
ALKIVAR™ 13:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose Crunch and Grace Note's age-ist votes, but also oppose bcz I can't see a single reason to support. Statements read nicely, but all I see is a façade. Pretty icing on a styrofoam cake.
Tomertalk 14:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose, statement is too frivolous and seems to self-contradict in a few spots.
Radiant_>|< 14:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose, inexperienced.
HGB 19:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose, for similar reasons to those already expressed.
Rje 19:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose for fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of ArbCom. It's purpose is not punishment.
Unfocused 00:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose(Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) -
Mailer Diablo 01:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose Mature Wikipedian with well thought out policy (or a lot of BS). But I must Oppose because of his answers to the questions which reveal how unready he is. --
Rmrfstar 04:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply