Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Ral315

Ral315
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 punishments appropriate 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 punish enact 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. Ral 315   WS  03:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Questions

Support

 * 1) Strong Support--Sean|Bla ck  00:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) &mdash;Kirill Lok s hin 00:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 00:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Agnte 00:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. --GraemeL (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. -- Simesa 01:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) -- ( drini's page &#x260E;  ) 02:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Kit 02:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. - Mys  e  kurity 03:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. Would be among the strongest candidates if not for age.--ragesoss 03:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 04:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Bobet 04:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. --maru (talk) Contribs 05:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Babajobu 05:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) How can you oppose someone who has demonstrated such selfless commitment to Wikipedia? He'd get it right.
 * 19) Support Changed my mind Fred Bauder 05:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20)  Support. Good user. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 05:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Support —Locke Cole • t • c 06:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. android  79  06:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Support Brian | (Talk) 07:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Support. &mdash; Catherine\talk 07:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Support Donar Reiskoffer 07:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Support Dalf | Talk 08:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Support. --Kefalonia 09:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Support. "one mustn't take arbitration too seriously": I agreeeee. -- Michalis Famelis 10:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Support. Adrian Buehlmann 10:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Support. Much like dmcdevit. Unflappable. Neutral. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Support --Nick Boalch?!? 11:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 12:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Strong support - brilliant user. Oppose age-based voting. --Cel e stianpower háblame 13:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Supposrt Trifon Triantafillidis 13:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 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) &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 15:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong support. Oppose ageism. the wub "?!"  RFR - a good idea? 15:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) Support Shows good sense despite young age. --kingboyk 18:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Support Been a very positive contributor to areas of the project which I frequent. --OntarioQuizzer 19:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Garion96 (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Solid contributor --pgk( talk ) 20:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 21:05Z 
 * 7) Support -- Polaris999 21:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Calm, fair, consistent. AnnH (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Rayc 02:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) 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)
 * 12) Support. A very positive contributor. --Eleassar my talk 19:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support all users matching the regexp /Ra[u]?l\d\d\d/. Oh, and for real non-silly reasons too. -Fennec (&#12399;&#12373;&#12400;&#12367;&#12398;&#12365;&#12388;&#12397;) 05:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) 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)
 * 15) Support Prodego  talk 20:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. Would probably do a good job. --G Rutter 20:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) 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. &mdash; J I P  | Talk 21:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) 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)
 * Support I think he would do a good job. --MasK of ThE CARNIVAL 00:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * User has less than 150 edits; most likely does not have suffrage. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 02:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Palmiro | Talk 11:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Andre (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, his statement overcomes any concerns I may have had with their experience. — Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 22:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak support. Civil and constructive, my only concern is relative lack of experience. Zocky 11:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - good policy. --NorkNork 21:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) support William M. Connolley 22:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. I oppose ageism and candidate is wise beyond his years. Would be an asset to ArbCom.  Velvetsmog 01:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Jared 12:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Pintele Yid 22:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 1) Support. maclean 25 00:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak support - I wouldn't normally recommend someone so young take on this role however his statement seems satisfactory. -- Francs2000 [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 00:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Statement and answers overcome my concerns about lack of experience. --William Pietri 01:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) 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)
 * 5) 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)
 * 6) Support.-gadfium 23:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Good candidate. Down with agism! Borisblue 23:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Tom Harrison Talk 04:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support -- Masonpatriot 05:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support well-written statements, thoughtful answers. Youngamerican 18:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) --Doc ask? 16:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support - llywrch 17:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Like his answers. Septentrionalis 04:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. PedanticallySpeaking 16:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support  Jacqui ★ 21:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support No reservations. Hamster Sandwich 17:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support per Omniwolf. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. Answers look good to me. -- SCZenz 17:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support Flcelloguy (A note? ) 02:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support I'm reasured about the future of the Signpost. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Support dave souza 10:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support KTC 12:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Support --Angr ( tɔk ) 17:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) 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)
 * 2) Michael Snow 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Cryptic (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 00:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) --Jaranda wat's sup 00:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. Carbonite | Talk 00:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) 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)
 * 9) Oppose based on experience. JYolkowski // talk 01:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose too young --Angelo 01:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 01:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose Sarah Ewart 02:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose. I don't mind being patronising. I oppose children as arbitrators. Grace Note 03:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose Very inexperienced. freestylefrappe 04:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) &mdash; Dan | talk 04:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose Rx StrangeLove 04:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose Per Fred Bauder. 172 04:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Very reluctant oppose due to a couple of question answers. --AySz88 ^ -  ^  05:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose per Ambi.--cj | talk 05:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose don't believe children should be abritrators, sorry, --Crunch 05:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose not much there - there - yet. Good decisions come from experience. Benjamin Gatti 06:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose Per above.  Ban  e  s  09:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Oppose not because he's too young, but because I know a bullshit artist when I see one TrafficBenBoy 11:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Oppose sad to oppose this one, answers to questions however make me too unsure of where candidate would stand.  ALKIVAR &trade;Radioactivity symbol.png 13:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Oppose.  Grue   14:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) 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.  Tom e rtalk  14:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Oppose, statement is too frivolous and seems to self-contradict in a few spots. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 14:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Oppose --Thorri 17:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Oppose. Weak. Soo 17:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Splash talk 23:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Oppose. -- HK  23:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Oppose cautious vote, statement and answers hard to make sense of. Chick Bowen 02:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) older&ne;wiser 02:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Oppose for IAR stance. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Oppose. Punish? No. Avriette 06:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Oppose, inexperienced. HGB 19:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) Oppose, for similar reasons to those already expressed. Rje 19:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) Oppose for fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of ArbCom. It's purpose is not punishment.   Un  focused  00:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 41) 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)
 * 42) Oppose. siafu 03:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 43) 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)
 * 44) Oppose. enochlau (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 45) Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 46) oppose Kingturtle 08:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per LawAndOrder All in 22:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * All in does not have suffrage; he registered at 02:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC) and he had only 112 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Rangek 02:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose based on answers; doesn't seem to take this "seriously" enough. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose -- Davidpdx 13:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Dr. B 17:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Reluctant oppose of an impressive contributor Why? ++Lar: t/c 01:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. Inexperienced.  (SEWilco 06:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC))
 * 8) Oppose. Too new.  For ArbCom, too much affinity for IRC. Superm401 | Talk 00:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. Preaky 00:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Weak Oppose. Only voting due to close race. Just have a bad vibe, nothing more concrete than that. crazyeddie 04:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose, inexperience. See my vote rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, insufficient grasp of WP policy. The Witch 15:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The Witch does not have suffrage; he registered at 08:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC) and he had only 1 edit as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) &#8212;Cryptic (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I'd like to see more experience with the 'pedia's article content --JWSchmidt 01:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, insufficient article writing. Wyss 16:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4)  Bratsche talk 05:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Pschemp | Talk 07:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. JSIN 01:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose WLD 17:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)