User talk:Ral315/Archive 27

What is meant to be and what is not...
Thank you for your recent comments and vote at my Request for Adminship. It was not successful. I don't believe this is unfortunate as it leaves me with much to ponder and a fresh slate from which I can better myself as an editor in order to be more compliant with the policies that are expected by Wikipedia.

If you feel that there is anything that was not covered by the RfA that I need improvement in, I would implore your input and feedback as I hope and intend to improve as best I'm guided.

All the best in your own endeavours in the real world, and also when you're not on Wikipedia. linca linca  14:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

CC-BY-2.5 as well?
Provided we give the Signpost prominent credit, would you consider co-licensing the upcoming interview with Ant as CC-BY-2.5, so it can be published on Wikinews? -- Zanimum 16:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Is there something you want to ask me? Durova Charge! 17:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost
Sir, I am one of the leading contributors to WikiProject Fire Service and would appreciate consideration as your Featured WikiProject for the Signpost. I am interested in new members to assist in developing articles and am happy to answer any questions relating to the Project if necessary. Thanks, --Daysleeper47 01:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Heya - everything OK?
Heya Ral - is everything OK? I noticed that your user page is blanked and deleted... concerned! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank goodness... I count you as our most valuable contributor, because without the signpost I'd have no idea what's going on around this place :-) Ta bu shi da yu 07:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost
Hello. In my 7 short days here I have discovered your newspaper. I am interested for writing for it. -- Whiteandnerdy111 20:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Villanova Library
Ral, I thought this might be Signpost material. Dppowell 03:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Prize medal image
Hi there. There is an editor who disputes that David Monniaux took the picture of the Nobel Prize in Physics medal that you uploaded since it can be found in many places on the internet, such as here, and it supposedly looks very similar to the image on the Nobel Foundation's website. Could you please comment on this in the Talk:Nobel Prize thread? Since the thread is getting pretty long, the editor who is questioning the copyright status of the image is aNubiSIII. Thanks! (Cross-posted to David.Monniaux's talk page.) –panda 19:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think this question is even being debated anymore, so I'll leave my reply here; feel free to copy it over or refer to it if the issue is debated again. Ral315 » 14:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's absurd to question whether David took the photo. If you look at the URL cited here, this picture was uploaded as part of a news story from November 2006 ("200611").  David uploaded his picture in July 2005.  I'd wager that someone at APS just took the photo from us -- since David's put his part of the contributions into the public domain, APS could probably use it under the same fair use restrictions that we can.


 * As for the suggestion that he took it from the Nobel Foundation, that's absurd. David originally uploaded the photo at an extremely high resolution (1020x1020), a quality I've not seen in any examples online.  The smaller photo you see there now is the result of a complaint by the Nobel Foundation, alleging that the photo was of such a high detail that they were worried about commercial usages of it.  So, why would the Nobel Foundation put out such a high-resolution photo?  The answer is that they wouldn't, and that the most likely scenario, by far, is that David took the photo himself.


 * And, honestly, I can see where NYScholar is coming from about "not having the time" to deal with this. This issue has gotten absurd -- it's one thing to question whether fair use is defensible on this image, but it's quite another to allege plagiarism against an established and trusted member of the Wikipedia community without any credible evidence.  Ral315 » 14:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply! –panda 15:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ral, no one is accusing anyone of anything. The question is whether this image is under copyright and, no, such a question is not absurd. Someone could have very easily uploaded a newer version of David's photo that was copyrighted (i.e. the image is no longer the photo that David took, although, I must also point out that the original rationale never mentioned that David actually took the photo). It seems to me that there is a strong possibility that this may be the case because: there is absolutely no metadata attached to the image, a basic google search will retrieve several copies of the same image, and even David's response is that he is unsure of whether it is the original version. If you feel that you are not done with this issue (although I wouldn't blame you if you are), could you please help by providing some non-circumstantial information that would show this is still the original photo. Thanks. aNubiSIII 21:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please don't misrepresent David's reply. He only stated "I don't have the time to check whether the current image is still my original photo taken in the buildings of the University of Edinburgh during the SAS '05 conference."   he never stated "he is unsure of whether it is the original version", as you claim.  –panda 19:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm that the current image is the same image uploaded by David Monniaux in 2005, only downsized. In addition to the fact that I took David's original and downsized it myself, administrators can also view deleted images, and I've looked at the large original (the one I deleted when I uploaded the smaller version. It is the same photo.  You can also ask any administrator to confirm this.  Ral315 » 03:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost
Hey Ral, I'm unsure if I should put this here or not, but this signpost article omits what project has reached 10000 articles. I left a comment on the articles talk page, but I thought you'd like to know straight away. Cheers. Knowledge Of Self | talk  10:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ral
Everything about my candidacy for Arb Com is in my statement. Danny (talk) 05:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester interview
1. What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?
 * Currently I am an admin, an OTRS legal queue volunteer, and a Communications Committee representative. In the past, I have served as a legal intern for the Wikimedia Foundation.

2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
 * I believe it is something that I would be good at. The committee needs new members, and I'd like to help.

3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
 * Yes, a couple as a party on both sides (requestor and requestee), and I occasionally leave a commentary on cases awaiting acceptance.

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 believe the nationalism articles, such as azerbaijan/armenia, have been handled well, though obviously there is room for improvement. Also, the Derek Smart arbitration resulted in a good decision that has eliminated the problem. I do not wish to single out certain cases as being poorly conducted, as we are not privy to the inner workings of the committee's decisions, however, I think all of the cases could be moved along much more quickly.

5. Why do you think users should vote for you?
 * Trust. Users can trust me to carefully handle the sensitive information that arbitrators are privy to, things that the foundation has already entrusted me with as an intern. I will be active, and try to keep these cases moving, while ensuring that all evidence is carefully reviewed. I believe that I am a good candidate for the job. I hope the community will place their trust in me as an arbitrator as well. &rArr;  SWAT  Jester    Son of the Defender  06:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

signpost
I am one of the accused in the Ideogram-Certified.Gangsta arbCom case. I was reading through the signpost archive and spotted a mistake. In the above page (and subsequent signposts that lasted until arbCom closed the case), the signpost claimed that Certified.Gangsta had yet to make a statement or submit evidence. This is untrue because even though I did not have a chance to make a statement before the case was accepted, I did, in fact, submit substantial evidence during that arbCom case. They can be found in the evidence page of the arbCom case. In it, I denied the allegations and pointed out that the arbcom case is a concerted anti-Certified.Gangsta campaign to kick me out of the project by members of WikiProject:China. Please correct it. Thanks--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 08:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Question about questions
Do you have any length suggestions for replies? Short and sweet or long and detailed? Thanks, Durova Charge! 10:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Deskana's ArbCom answers
--Deskana (talk) 11:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?
 * I am an Administrator, Bureaucrat, Checkuser, Oversighter, member of the Mediation Committee and OTRS volunteer.
 * 1) Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
 * The community needs confidence in the people that arbitrate for them. Several users who I respect had recommended I run, which made me consider whether or not I felt I could do a good job. I think I can do a good job, so if the community wants me, then I will do it.
 * 1) Have you been involved in any arbitration cases?  In what capacity?
 * I have been a party in one case, Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war which was referred directly from Jimbo. My involvement in the case was minimal, other than to explain why I had deleted the article during the wheel war. Due to my explanation as to why my deletion was not part of the wheel war, no findings of fact or remedies were proposed about me (other than "Deskana excused" and similar things that the committee didn't use). More recently I was involved in Digwuren. where I gave evidence. I was not a party in this case, but I had been involved with Digwuren and some other Estonian and Russian editors in the past (particularly on Rein Lang, which was commented on by the press and I was indirectly mentioned as a "senior administrator", a misconception of the Estonian government). This case took quite a while to sort out, but that seemed to be more because none of the people involved in the case were giving evidence, rather than anything to do with the committee.
 * 1) In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well?  Any you think they handled poorly?
 * I agreed totally with their handling of Digwuren, though I was involved in that case so had I been an arbitrator I would have recused. The only mistake I think the committee has made is by taking too long to answer cases, which could possibly be more damaging than making bad remedies, in certain cases.
 * 1) Why do you think users should vote for you?
 * I'm hard working (one of the most active bureaucrats and one of the most active checkusers), dependable (I've been on Wikipedia for 2 years, 5 months now), contactable (I try to respond to e-mails quickly, and always appreciate reminders), and I know what the community expects of its editors and administrators, so I can produce effective remedies that the community is happy to enforce (and it's important the community are happy with them).

Alexia Death replies
--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?
 * None. I'm one of the commoners at Wikipedia.
 * 1) Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
 * Because I want to fix things. I want to take to ArbCom my skill to ask "WHY?" at the right place, to find remedies that actually serve the community as a whole, to be a catalyst for permanent change and preferring problem prevention over constant cleanup.
 * 1) Have you been involved in any arbitration cases?  In what capacity?
 * Ive been party to one case. The case made it pretty clear where ArbCom fails. I want to fix it.
 * 1) In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well?  Any you think they handled poorly?
 * There are neither. All cases i have looked into solve the problems at hand, but fail to do anything to solve the underlying issues.
 * 1) Why do you think users should vote for you?
 * If they like the way things are, they should not. If they want an ArbCom that passes judgment on all non-content issues raised, that actually asks why instead of allowing ArbCom sessions to unravel like mud wars and then beat everybody for getting dirty then they should vote for me. I will always try to ask why things got to ArbCom and pass judgment based on that.

ArbCom
Here are your answers :
 * 1) The positions that I hold are only small... I am a volunteer of the Mediation Cabal...
 * 2) I am running for the ArbCom because I want to make a difference in the way that some things are run.
 * No, not any ArbCom cases.
 * 1) There were not a lot that were exceptionally well handled or poorly handled.
 * 2) Users should vote for me if they want some change, as I will bring about a difference to the way the ArbCom has been doing things, but some will have to stay the same, like tried and true methods that have been tested against other possibilities.

&lt; DREAMAFTER &gt;&lt; TALK &gt; 22:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Stifle's replies

 * 1) I am currently an administrator and a fairly inactive caballist.
 * 2) I think I could do a good job as an arbitrator, as I am quite active, experienced in resolving problems and difficulties, and I want to help Wikipedia grow.
 * 3) I was a complainant in Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude, and have made minor contributions to others.
 * 4) I thought that Allegations of Apartheid was left run on for too long before being dismissed, causing general annoyance between the parties to expand unnecessarily. I thought the Daniel Brandt wheel war case was a good example of clearing up matters in good time. Other than that I think the cases have been dealt with decently.
 * 5) I think users should make their own decisions and if they think that I will be a help to the Arbitration Committee, they should consider voting for me. Stifle (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hemlock Martinis' reply

 * 1) What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?
 * I've been an administrator since April 13 of this year.
 * 1) Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
 * Two reasons. The first, mentioned in my candidate statement, is that I want to help make ArbCom more efficient and effective. Cases shouldn't be bogged down by the inactivity or lack of participation by arbitrators. I would remedy this by being consistently active and involved. I watched the Allegations of apartheid case become stagnant and ignored until it was eventually closed out of apathy. That's not acceptable.
 * The second reason is that I want to end the practice of secret evidence, which has become more and more problematic and controversial in the last month. I oppose secret evidence because it can and has been abused, and because it does not provide all parties with a chance to refute, explain or provide context. Although it has its uses in privacy issues, I would like to see it banned in situations past that. Transparency and fairness is vital to Arbitration processes.
 * 1) Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
 * I have never been named as a party in any arbitration case. I became involved in the Allegations of apartheid case by virtue of my closure of the Allegations of Chinese apartheid deletion discussion and my participation in its subsequent DRV. I also recently participated in Alkivar's arbitration case, where I steadfastly opposed an editor's use of secret evidence that Alkivar was not allowed to review, something that I saw as flying directly in the face of fairness and justice. I view my lack of arbitration involvement as a good thing - it allows me to come into an arbitrator position with a fresh perspective.
 * 1) In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?
 * I believe the handling of the Allegations of apartheid case was abominable and the result of lack of participation and unwillingness to chastise established editors. I was frustrated by the lack of active participation by arbitrators in that case. Although the final conclusions of the Alkivar case were accurate, I still would have liked to have seen a rebuke of the usage of secret evidence by the Arbitration Committee. Should it come up in a case under my term, I would encourage my fellow arbitrators to make it practice not to accept secret evidence unless there are privacy concerns or other exceptional circumstances.
 * 1) Why do you think users should vote for you?
 * Three reasons. My outlook - I'm neutral, even and unbiased. My positions - I am a determined opponent of secret evidence and a fierce critic of incivility and personal attacks. And my pledge - I vow to be active in discussions, attentive to evidence, and fair in decisions. Thank you. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Monsieurdl interview (Complete 23 November, 2007)
What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?


 * A1. I'm a Wikipedia editor only, with plenty of time for this responsibility. Without high-quality articles and people to help good editors get their job done, Wikipedia would not and could not exist successfully!

Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?


 * A2. I am running because I feel quality people who are readily available to examine cases in a diplomatic, unbiased manner are needed. We need to have people working on ArbCom who look beyond just the simple, but get into the complex details and come to a decision that will make Wikipedia a great place to interact. We should never allow people to abuse others to the point where it goes on for far too long or they go unpunished, scaring off others who make great contributions.

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


 * A3. No, because every problem I have ever had in an article has been worked out by RfC or lower-level discussions. I'm not prone to go higher up unless I really, really have to. I have observed many cases in which editors I know are involved, and that is how I came to the decision regarding running for ArbCom- dedicated quality people are sorely needed.

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


 * A4. On the positive, Sadi Carnot was handled decisively and very well on all counts. The type of activity that got the user banned for one year most certainly fit the punishment. I just wish this could happen more so that it doesn't get to the point where good editors go mad.


 * I have commented on a case in which I thought was handled poorly, and that was Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2. For my first question this election, I was asked about a case in which I thought the case was not done correctly and I gave this answer:
 * "I have never been a big proponent of supervisory judgments, for I find them to be ineffective. Outright bans for a specific period are the most effective way to put people on notice for their actions- it is much less disruptive, and allows serious editors a chance to get their work done. These judgments were handed down in Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2, a case that I found to be particularly poignant. What we have here is a total mess- a complete lack of civility, posturing bordering on insanity, rabid nationalism, he said she said, and yet it happened not ONCE but TWICE. That to me turns people off to Wikipedia. These disruptive people need to be put on notice in an effective manner- warnings and watches just are not working- a fine example."
 * -Questions for the candidate Monsieurdl

Why do you think users should vote for you?


 * A5. I'm very diplomatic, a thorough researcher, a perfectionist when it comes to my work, affable, dependable, and most of all free to do my job actively.


 * Thank you for this opportunity to answer all of your questions! Monsieurdl (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Arb Com Questions - Shell Kinney

 * 1) What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?
 * Admin, OTRS
 * 1) Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
 * I can help and have the skills to do so.
 * 1) Have you been involved in any arbitration cases?  In what capacity?
 * Yes, I've taken two cases to arbitration, [Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Shiloh|Shiloh] and Monicasdude. In both cases, I was a party.
 * 1) In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well?  Any you think they handled poorly?
 * I think the Attack sites case was a bit of a mess. It was a sticky thing to be going into and ended up producing a rambling list of decisions to try to remind the community of our policies.  I think it would have made a lot more sense to either just clarify the earlier ruling or, once the case was opened, deal with the problematic behavior instead of making general statements.
 * 1) Why do you think users should vote for you?
 * Because you probably don't know who I am -- this means I manage to contribute, clean-up, mediate and work for OTRS and still manage to resolve problems without creating issues and or drama. (Don't take this too far out of context - if Durova doesn't get a seat on ArbCom, it will be a sad, sad day.)

Thanks for the spots in the Signpost again this year :) Shell babelfish 15:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Arb Com Questions - David Fuchs

 * 1) What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?
 * I'm currently an admin, with said privileges since the 12th of May, 2007.
 * 1) Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
 * Because I like helping out, and ArbCom seems like it's in need of a few good users.
 * 1) Have you been involved in any arbitration cases?  In what capacity?
 * I've actually never been involved in any arbitration cases; the closest I ever came was a mediation case for WP:SPOILER which threatened to spill over, luckily however the disputes were defused before ArbCom was needed. Issues or debates I've had with other users I've been able to deal with at lower levels of WP:DR, but I always read up on ArbCom cases.
 * 1) In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well?  Any you think they handled poorly?
 * I think when no one raises a fuss, ArbCom has worked well; no extra back-thumping is needed. In terms of handled 'poorly', I wouldn't put the sole blame on ArbCom in any of these cases, but Requests for arbitration/BJAODN and Requests for arbitration/Attack sites were both tar babies and ended up with a little more noise than needed. In terms of BJAODN, i think the failure was a breakdown of WP:BRD, but in the attack site case, I feel ArbCom should have dealt more specifically with the issue at hand rather than rattle off our policies.
 * 1) Why do you think users should vote for you?
 * I'm probably no more execptional than many of the candidates, and perhaps a good deal less, but whoever votes for me I can assure that I'm willing to give ArbCom my all. David Fuchs ( talk  ) 16:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
for your work on the wikipedia newspaper. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's answers

 * 1) What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?
 * I've been a registered user since February 2006 and an active contributor since July 2006; I became an administrator in January 2007. During 2007, I've also been an Arbitration Committee Clerk since the beginning of 2007 and have been one of the most active clerks during the year. I was also one of the members of the committee that coordinated this year's election for three members of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.
 * 1) Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
 * As an observer, a participant in cases, and a clerk, I have experienced the strengths and weaknesses of Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes, which culminate in arbitration when other methods fail. I believe that my Wikipedia experience make me a good fit to join as one of the members of the committee and that I can contribute to deciding the cases and performing the committee's other duties fairly and expeditiously.
 * 1) Have you been involved in any arbitration cases?  In what capacity?
 * I have never been named as a party to an arbitration case. However, I have presented evidence in a couple of cases, and I have made workshop proposals in quite a number of others, several of which have been incorporated into the arbitrators' final decisions (I have probably written more words of official ArbCom decisions than some of the sitting arbitrators). I have also dealt with many cases as a clerk; this role primarily involves opening and closing case pages, notifying the parties and giving them procedural advice, and the like, but it has familiarized with me with the arbitration process and with what types approaches have and have not been successful over the past year.
 * 1) In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well?  Any you think they handled poorly?
 * Looking back over the list of cases decided in 2007, there are not many cases in which I think that the final decision contained an outrageous misjudgment. In other words, I believe the committee's final decisions this year have generally been sound. This is not to say that I agree with every word of every decision, but I am reluctant to reopen old wounds, or to multiply the length of this response, by closely analyzing the final decisions and identifying deficiencies either of substance or of form in cases that were closed some months ago. (If anyone is truly curious, ask me to elaborate on my candidate questions page.) While the committee's final decisions have usually been sound, there have certainly been some proposals made by arbitrators on workshops or proposed decision pages, that were ill-thought and in some cases totally unacceptable, but fortunately these have not been adopted. There are also matters on which I've disagreed with the committee outside the context of a specific case, such as the concerns I have expressed regarding the "4 net vote" case-acceptance policy and regarding the newly announced minimum age requirement for arbitrators.
 * There have been also been several instances in which the committee has eventually reached a sensible result in a case, but the process has dragged on for so long that much of the value of the decision has been dissipated (because the parties have been using the case pages to call each other names for another two months so that relations among editors at the end of the case are worse rather than better, or one of the parties has become disspirited and left the project completely). Fortunately, within the past few weeks, the serious problem of undue delay in resolving cases has been greatly lessened. I hope and expect to see this improvement continue into the future.
 * 1) Why do you think users should vote for you?
 * This is the type of awkward question that invites all the candidates to say nice things about himself or herself, requiring one to steer between the Scylla of self-deprecation and the Charybdis of cloying self-flattery. In an effort to stay clear of both of these perils, I will allow my record on Wikipedia to speak for itself. Those interested are of course welcome to take a look at my candidate statement and my answers to about 70 more questions for further information.

Thank you to the community for your consideration, and best of luck to all the candidates in the election. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom questions (White Cat)
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 am just a mere editor on en.wiki. I am a commons admin if that matters at all... I would not classify any of those examples and etc as a "position". None of them is a big deal.
 * 1) Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
 * I feel this is an area where I can employ my experiences. I do not really have a detailed answer to this question as I merely want to serve the community.
 * 1) Have you been involved in any arbitration cases?  In what capacity?
 * I was an involved party on two past cases (WP:RFAR/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek (2005) and WP:RFAR/Moby Dick (2006)) as an "involved party". The two cases were filed over harassment complaints. I have been "involved" with many cases. For the most part, I observed. Among the most interesting cases was WP:RFAR/Armenia-Azerbaijan and WP:RFAR/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. I am currently an "involved party" on WP:RFAR/Episodes and characters which opened on 22 November 2007.
 * 1) In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well?  Any you think they handled poorly?
 * I really do not feel I am in a position to question the decisions of arbcom. I really feel it is very easy to look back to a closed case and 'judge' it so anything I put here wont be truly fair. Arbcom is overloaded with cases and they are doing quite a decent job. However I feel there were one case (WP:RFAR/Armenia-Azerbaijan) which were handled less than perfectly. There was a second case (WP:RFAR/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2) over the mater which was handled exceptionally well. I do not believe arbcom did poorly on the first case. Remedies could have been better worded and enacted and the second case perhaps might have been avoided - but all that isn't really important. Resolving such a complex dispute is however an exceptional accomplishment for arbcom - it just could have gone more smoothly though. There may be a third case judging from enforcement logs: case 1, case 2.
 * 1) Why do you think users should vote for you?
 * Had I been voting for a candidate, criteria I would look for at the candidate would be candidness, honesty, sincerity, impartiality, credibility. I recuse myself from judging myself per coi :P. I'd hope the users would vote for a candidate (whoever it may be) that has these fine qualities.

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 » 04:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll be working on my response so please disregard this for now. -- Cat chi? 06:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * All done. -- Cat chi? 12:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom questions - bainer's answers

 * 1) What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?
 * I'm an administrator (since December 2005) and an OTRS volunteer (since early 2006).
 * 1) Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
 * Arbitration requires a continual investment of energy and enthusiasm to make it work. I feel that I have a good mind for detail and a strong grasp of policy, and that I have skills and knowledge which would be useful. I think that I could assist in improving upon the methods of arbitration to help it run more smoothly. Ultimately this is just another way in which I hope to contribute to the well-being of the project.
 * 1) Have you been involved in any arbitration cases?  In what capacity?
 * I was peripherally involved in the Internodeuser (aka Zordrac) arbitration. I was listed as a party to the Husnock arbitration, as the maker of a block that preceded the case. I've also presented evidence in a number of cases in which I haven't been involved, including the Brandt deletion wheel war case and the Miskin arbitration.
 * 1) In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well?  Any you think they handled poorly?
 * The Brandt deletion wheel war case was handled swiftly but efficaciously: the Committee quickly identified it as an important case, and were able to hone in on the key issues in it, and kept the case focussed and the parameters of the dispute well-defined. In the Badlydrawnjeff arbitration, the Committee managed to distill an extraordinarily complex raft of proposals and suggestions into a few choice principles that were broadly acceptable to most people. That this was done during a groundswell of community-driven change in the underlying policies was even more impressive, with the Committee accurately judging this shift.
 * 1) Why do you think users should vote for you?
 * I don't know of anyone else who has received barnstars for arbitration evidence they have presented :)
 * Seriously though, I hope that, after more than three years contributing to the project, I have a good enough understanding of its workings and of the community to be able to be contribute to it further in this way.

--bainer (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom questions
Am I being a little bit cheeky answering these? I entered just after you sent them out but I saw them on some of the other candidates' talk pages.


 * 1) What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?
 * First and foremost I'm an article writer. I am also an administrator, since April. I have volunteered to be an OTRS member but I haven't heard anything back from it yet.
 * 1) Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
 * Mostly because I would really like to serve on it. I have seen arbitration cases progress and think I could bring a thoughtful input into deliberation, better understanding the parties' approaches and likely future behaviour, and considering the best result for the encyclopaedia.
 * 1) Have you been involved in any arbitration cases?  In what capacity?
 * I was a party in Miskin because I had handled the initial three revert rule report. I looked over the The Troubles case having tried to solve the earlier editing dispute. I have offered evidence in Winter Soldier 2 where I was again involved as 3RR enforcing admin, and also commented on proposals in Privatemusings.
 * 1) In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well?  Any you think they handled poorly?
 * I like some of the broad restrictions which the committee pioneered with the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 case, allowing uninvolved administrators for good cause to place users under editing restriction without getting further sanction from ArbCom but with appropriate review. This model was recycled for The Troubles case and by and large it works. I regret that the THF case, which concerned several very important issues, did not go through to a conclusion.
 * 1) Why do you think users should vote for you?
 * I hope, because I have been able to maintain civility and not let feelings of personal pride intrude. I hope users recognise me as an editor who has the best interests of the encyclopaedia at heart.

Will that do? Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

JoshuaZ's arbcom answers
1. What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?
 * I am an administrator. No fancy positions.

2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
 * As I discuss in my candidacy statement for ArbCom which I invite you to read at User:JoshuaZ/ArbCom, I am a highly am running because I am an experienced, highly qualified candidate with a decent amount of free time.

4. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
 * I've been involved in a variety of arbitration cases also as discussed in my statement. To quote from there and save you a click:
 * One of the first things with which I was involved on Wikipedia was an Arbitration case, Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel in which I provided evidence based on linguistic and other habits that an anonymous editor of the Jonathan Sarfati was likely Sarfati himself. The ability to analyze this sort of evidence is frequently at issue in ArbCom cases, and I have both experience and facility with it.


 * I also brought Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2 to the committee. The details of this case were unpleasant. A long-term editor who had been involved with this project from almost the beginning was engaging in unacceptable editing, and I helped to stop that. More details are available by reading the case itself.


 * I've been involved in many other ArbCom cases, in some instances providing evidence and in others commenting in the workshops.


 * 1) In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well?  Any you think they handled poorly?
 * I don't what it means for a case to be handled exceptionally well. I haven't seen many cases indicating great brilliance on the ArbCom's part but I'm not at all sure what that would mean. Poorly handled cases are easier to point out. I don't think Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid dealt with the underlying issues and taking so long that an issue becomes moot is not a good result. I wasn't happy with Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone, which ended with a good but problematic editor leaving the project and did nothing at all to deal with the fact that an outside agent engages in disgusting harassment and attempts to manipulate Wikipedia. However, I'm not sure in that case that there was much that the ArbCom could have done that would have helped much.
 * 1) Why do you think users should vote for you?
 * As I discuss on my stater (which I once again invite you to read), I'm a highly qualified admin with a lot of experience in both general dispute resolution on Wikipedia as well as experience with the ArbCom. I'm also active on a few other Wikimedia projects so I have some idea what other projects are doing in similar situations.

Thanks! JoshuaZ (talk) 02:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Arbcom questions

 * 1) What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?
 * I've been an admin since January '07, and I've been on medcab for a few months as well.
 * 1) Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
 * I'm running so that I can serve Wikipedia somewhere where I can have a strong impact on the community, and where I make a difference.
 * 1) Have you been involved in any arbitration cases?  In what capacity?
 * I haven't been a party in any, but I' have done some evidence providing and pre-acceptance statements, the former mainly being for the Certified.Gangsta case and the subsequent review.
 * 1) In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well?  Any you think they handled poorly?
 * I'm iffy about how Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid was handled. Whether or not there was an issue, letting it sit there for three months and deciding the community was handling it just does not sit right with me. Generally, most of the cases are either resolved well or are resolved moderately, which is eventually fixed.
 * 1) Why do you think users should vote for you?
 * I'll actually do my job; they're won't be cases stuck in voting or motions for a month with be looking through them. I'm also very impartial. Wizardman  05:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Administrator and OTRS if it counts. 2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

Like others, I would like to see cases resolved in a more timely manner. Additionally, I would like to see more arbitrator involvement in all cases, from start to finish, on all pages. Currently we don't have enough of that right now. Simply put, I would like to see a more active, and involved, arbitrator on the committee.

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

While I've never on a personal level, I have witnessed many a controversial arbitration case, and the community response to the outcome, which as you might imagine was generally negative. Additionally, I've offered my "two cents" to cases in which I feel would benefit from it.

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

Without mentioning any specific cases I will say there have been cases handled well, and others handled poorly. Most of the other candidates hit the nail on the head with the cases they bring up. Some cases that come to ArbCom are messy to say the least, and trying to please everyone on the community is like trying to bring two million articles up to FA status- it simply cannot be done. 5. Why do you think users should vote for you?

It's up for the community to decide. My assertions are available on my candidacy page and my questions page. My experience and qualifications will translate into an excellent arbitrator. If nothing else, there's only one question you need to ask yourself, "Do I trust Pilotguy to be on the arbitration committee?" - P ilotguy  contact tower  15:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrator questions
Sorry to take so long - you reached me in the leadup to exams.

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


 * Just administrator.

2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?


 * Because I feel the need to provide a sensible, skeptical, scientific presence.

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


 * I was one of the people that got caught up in the Requests for arbitration/Jean-Thierry Boisseau difficulty. Basically, it was a case involving what, if anything, could be done to correct for the historical bias against women opera composers on List of major opera composers. Historically, the cost of producing an opera prevented very many women from ever getting the chance to have one performed, and hid many of the efforts of those who did. We were able to find two women opera composers that a few reliable sources ranked as among the best, but Jean-Thierry Boisseau didn't feel this was good enough and wanted equal numbers of women, to correct the historical wrongs.
 * It gets complex and sordid after that, so let's let it be. Suffice it to say it was incredibly frustrating, and a very disruptive editor was allowed to continue for months while the process dragged on, and ended up leaving just before arbcom made a decision.

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


 * Arbitration is a thankless job, and when it's going well, you don't notice it. Combined with the glacial slowness that has caused even the best decisions to come rather late, it's hard to point out any decision as exceptionally good. But there was one case that was exceptionally bad: Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal/Proposed_decision judged that the scientific point of view was partisian and that Wikipedians could be cautioned for promoting it. A site, Quackwatch recommended by many medical orginisations, was declared partisian and unreliable.
 * This is simply wrong.

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


 * To try and provide sense, fairness, and speed to the ArbCom, and because I'm not afraid of controversy. (Though I do rather wish the elections weren't happening just before exams, which rather damages my claim to the speediness part.)

Adam Cuerden talk 17:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom: Physchim62
1. What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?
 * I have been an administrator since 2005-11-06.

2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
 * I decided to run at the last minute, although it neatly coincided with my two years of adminship. I have been fairly critical of the current Committee in a variety of contexts. I think that sterile criticism is unproductive, and so I felt a certain moral responsability to propose an alternative.

3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
 * Pedophilia userbox case: A very minor role
 * Depleted uranium case: I had offered to mediate in a dispute (the participants requested a scientifically-qualified mediator), but the mediation broke down over the attitude of one of the parties. That party is now banned from wikipedia.
 * Catalonia case: For several months, I had been the only admin looking over articles about Catalonia and the Valencian Community, in which there was a certain amount of PoV-pushing from both nationalists and anti-nationalists. Eventually, after proposing mediation, I took everyone to arbitration.
 * Sadi Carnot case: The original block of Sadi Carnot was hasty and unnecessary, so I reverted to allow discussion to take place on the basis of the status quo ante. The case also raised questions as to the ambiguity of banning policy.

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 can't find any case from the last year which would make me say "ArbCom did really well on that one". On the other hand, decisions have for the most part been accepted, if grudgingly—there has been no open rebellion—and so I can't say that it has acted catastrophically either.
 * On the positive side, this Committee has tried to find solutions for disputes whose solution really lies elsewhere in the Community: I am thinking particularly of the various nationalism disputes, where the Committee has tried a wide variety of remedies, with variable success. On the negative side, this Committee has tended towards a philosophy of "do the least which is necessary to get rid of the case": this had led to some strange and contradictory decisions over the last twelve months, which have rarely been satisfactoraly explined.

5. Why do you think users should vote for you?
 * Most users will not vote for me. Most users couldn't care less about the elections to the Arbitration Committee. We have around 1 million distinct IP addresses which edit English Wikipedia each month, only a very small proportion of the users which those IPs represent will vote in these elections. If I am elected, I shall do my best to ensure that Wikipedia remains (or, in some unfortunate cases, becomes) a place where individuals can use their personal knowledge and skills to improve our encyclopedia.

Physchim62 (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ryan Postlethwaite's interview

 * 1) What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?
 * Well, I've been a member of wikipedia since October 2006, I became an administrator in March 2007, I'm currently a member of the mediation committee and I'm also an OTRS volunteer.
 * 1) Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
 * I guess the reason why I want to be on the arbitration committee is because I feel I can make a difference. I've enjoyed every minute I've been here and want to give even more to the project. I particularly enjoy taking part in dispute resolution procedures, and I think I act in a neutral manner with all parties involved. At all times I try to be firm, but fair and offer ways to solve disputes without having to move to more severe dispute resolution measures.
 * 1) Have you been involved in any arbitration cases?  In what capacity?
 * I've never been a named party in an arbitration case, but I've helped in a number of the workshop pages for cases which I'm not involved in. For the Betacommand case, I submitted evidence about innappropriate username blocks and I've also submitted principles, findings of fact and remedies which the current arbitrators have used in their final decision for Requests for arbitration/Miskin and Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. I also proposed the dismissal of the PalestineRemembered case which the arbitrators adapted.
 * 1) In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well?  Any you think they handled poorly?
 * Generally speaking, I think the committee have made the right decisions in most of the cases that they have worked on. I'd like to draw attention in particular to Requests_for_arbitration/Jeffrey_O._Gustafson. By the end of the case, there were a lot of people calling for Jeffrey_O._Gustafson to be desysopped, but the committee instead used their judgement and only suspended his adminship for 30 days. Jeffrey recognises that this short suspension has made him see things in a different light and he has become much better at communication since. I was a little disapointed at Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 - there's been a lot of disruption on these pages coming in multiple forms, but the scope of the decision only allows sanctions to be placed against editors that edit war with incivility. I don't believe it fully recognises that the edit warring on these pages itself is extremely serious and given the previous case didn't solve the dispute, a harsher line should probably have been taken by the committee.
 * 1) Why do you think users should vote for you?
 * I think I'm trusted, accessible and have the knowledge and experience in dispute resolution to handle arbitration committee cases well. I also believe that I'm extremely open to discussing concerns which I believe is essential for the committee to remain in touch with the community. I try and be firm but fair in all disputes I mediate or get involved in, which is the way in which any arbitratot should act.

-- Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  19:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Endlessdan Answers

 * 1) None. EndlessDan is for the children.
 * 2) For the money.
 * 3) Nah.
 * 4) I think they handled them all flawlessly without exception.
 * 5) Endless Dan: Why Not?

Endless Dan 19:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Email for you
See above :)

Best,

FT2 (Talk 21:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Replies to your questions

 * 1) Administrator, Arbitrator, FA director, OTRSer, Checkuserer, Oversighter, Comcom member
 * 2) Because I like it now that I brained my damage the last time ;) -- (on a more serious note) because I think my participation on the committee, voicing my opinions in disputes that matter helps improve the site.
 * 3) I have been involved in many arbitraton cases - mostly as an arbitrator, but occasionally as a participant
 * 4) Being on the arbcom is sort-of like being in the CIA -- nobody knows about or remembers your successes, but they sure remember your failures. I think the arbcom did particularly well in the wheel-war last February (admittedly, that's a bit more than a year ago). After a wheel war that threatened had broken out and was quickly becoming very ugly, we got Jimbo to do an emergency intervention to stop the war, and then rendered a decision that was speedy (fastest arbitration committee decision ever) well thought out, and in my opinion, generally fair all around. (Although I took exception to one or two of the final remedies).
 * 5) They should vote for me because of my knowledge and experience on the site and in interacting with its users, and because of the personal values and insights I bring to the arbitration process. Raul654 (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom election answers

 * 1) What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?
 * Admin and OTRS,1 a Wikimedia Foundation position of trust that includes handling of confidential user information.
 * 1) Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
 * Virtually since joining, I've written content, actively shouldered major disputes, and helped resolve problems for others. These kinds of train-wreck (or very divisive) disputes and complicated cases needing a lot of checking are an area most will avoid, but I find fulfilling and I'm able to effectively work on: it means good-faith editors can finally get on with adding content.
 * 1) Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
 * I've presented the main evidence on four cases now (2004, 2 x 2005, 2007), and several 'outside evidence', as well as drafting proposals and writing one of the Arbitration Policy sub-pages. Twice my view was adopted as the final resolution of a case. My involvement has always been to present evidence, or do other work on the case.
 * 1) In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?
 * Yes to both. The final rulings were usually good, and (crucially) when they did err, it was mostly on the side of caution which can be remedied in future. The proposals were more variable, reflecting difficulty in some cases and misjudgements in others. Often the handling was the main concern. However most cases did ultimately provide valid findings and remedies.
 * 1) Why do you think users should vote for you?
 * 2) I'm well suited to the task and experienced, with a high level of communal support of case judgements and findings.
 * 3) I understand what a prompt, high quality resolution can accomplish, and I put work into achieving that for others.

FT2 (Talk 07:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Answers from Will Beback
1. Admin and OTRS.

2. The ArbCom needs committed volunteers who can put in the time and effort to resolve disputes that disrupt Wikipedia. I beleive I could help the committee with my involvement.


 * 3.
 * Involved party:
 * Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2
 * Requests for arbitration/Alienus
 * Requests for arbitration/Rangerdude


 * Uninvolved party: (gave evidence or discussed motions)
 * Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2/Evidence
 * Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid/Workshop
 * Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Blu Aardvark
 * Requests for arbitration/Jacrosse
 * Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba/Evidence
 * Requests for arbitration/Attack sites

4. A recently closed request, Requests for arbitration/Railpage Australia, is a great example of a simple case that was handled quickly and properly. Requests for arbitration/The Troubles was a much more complicated request, and took two months to settle, but I think it is also a good example of a well-handled case. On the other hand, Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone is an example of a failed case. While the case was dropped to the departure of one party, it seems that the committee was unable to decide on the facts or remedies. I think that a more methodical approach to complicated cases may reduce stalemates like this.

5. Users can judge me by my record and my statements. I'm a longtime contributor to the project who is good at analyzing evidence and summarizing complicated issues. The ArbCom needs people who are willing to put in long hours over a three-year term, who can approach divisive issues with fairness and diplomacy, and who can achieve consensus within the committee. I believe I can meet those requirements.

Thanks for compiling these. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)