User talk:Ral315/Archive 31

The heart of the WMF claim to section 230 protection is that they don't control what users say on wiki, and yet here they are influencing what you say, and through your actions what others choose to write about on Wikipedia. There are some icky implied contradictions in there. Dragons flight (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Hi Ral315! I've been reading the signpost for a while now, and I am very interested in helping make it better? Can I be part of the team please? What can I do to help? If you could respond on my talk page that would be great! Thank you, SwirlBoy 39 17:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

Hi Ral315, your signpost is really atrracting. I am a very frequent contributor and I can't stand one day of contributing without reading the paper. I hope it will be a lot more. Sincerely, ĤéĺĺвοЎ (talk) 10:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP remedy in Footnotes Arbitration case and Signpost coverage

I think the title says it all. My comments here might help if this is too cryptic. I also noticed the Signpost ArbCom reports were written by you recently. Has the usual editor stopped or gone on holiday? Carcharoth (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

News and notes

Hi. How does one submit a potential News and notes item for consideration? --Dweller (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Dweller (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the great job you do on the Signpost. Feel better! 65.190.92.233 (talk) 12:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Features and admins

I'll do it now because I had exams this week. Sorry for the delay. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-06-26/Technology_report

The bug templates are broken. I corrected one of them on this edit. They are trying to use the template "/bug" instead of "bug" but I saw something extrange when trying to correct them.

The template is {{subst:bug|36349|14402}} but if I correct it then it links to bug 36349 which does not exist, and the number 14402 appears nowhere on the resulting link. The correct bug is bug 14402 so I winded up using {{subst:bug|14402}}. What the heck is that "36349" number doing there? It is maybe some id for something else that the template bug should be linking, like the bug request or something? Maybe a left over error from copypasting text from somewhere else? --Enric Naval (talk) 08:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Error

Re Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-06-23/Arbitration_report Alansohn wasn't banned, he was restricted. There's a huge difference. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BANNED, 'banned' means they can't edit at all. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you didn't say "topic ban", you just said "banned", which people are going to interpret as a total ban. Your initial statement was inaccurate and misleading. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-23/Board elections

Excuse me, where could I get those specific turnout results of every wiki? --SMP - talk (en) - talk (ca) 19:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha!

WP:DEVO made me this of this for the first time in thirty years! --Jenny 06:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spamlist

Hi; you put a message on my talkpage that I've not edited for the past few months and am being removed from the spamlist. I've edited almost every day for the last 19 months - so could I be restored please? Thanks :-) ╟─Treasury Tag╬contribs─╢ 10:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did somebody say something? :) --Jenny 10:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job

I just read your articles on OrangeMarlin and ArbCom. Really nice job of reporting. Thanks much for your work. TimidGuy (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Members of the European Union (EU)

This is not a high-risk template. It has never (as far as I've seen) never been vandalised. Please unprotect it. - SSJ ☎ 20:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SSJ has requested that the protection level be reduced to semi at WP:RFPP. I'm inclined to agree that semi should be enough. Any objection to me reducing the level? VegaDark (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding removal from spamlist...

Hi! I've received a message about removal from Signpost spamlist due to inactivity. I am inactive, yes, but I still want to get new Signpost issues on my talk page. Please, subscribe me to Signpost spamlist again. Thank you. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost talk

Hi Ral315, would you mind replying to my reply to you on Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single#Clickable_Signpost_image regarding the linking to the full issue versus its table of contents. Thanks :-) Cacycle (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Sounds

Just to note, there were two new featured sounds this week. =) They havent been getting promoted that often, but there's been an effort to revive the project. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date-autoformatting

But it looks silly to have July 7, 2008 above, then clashing with 7 July 2008 immediately below if that's your preference. This is the very type of context where the autoformatting needs to be dropped. Another, for example, is the article on September 11, 2001, which is known in all English-speaking countries by the US formatting, both orally and in writing. It looks wrong when auto-dudded.

Perhaps you might reconsider the autoformatting issue in the coming weeks/months. (BTW, using it doesn't breach MOS; it's just that MOS no longer encourages its use.)

Cheers Tony (talk) 10:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Sounds

Any chance of a dispatch on these? I'd be willing to write it, if you like. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We had one only a few months ago: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-05-26/Dispatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

News and notes

How do you determine something is "newsworthy" enough to place in news and notes? (What are your criteria?) - jc37 01:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There really isn't any criteria; I judge what I think is worth covering, and write it. However, if you think something's notable, you can always write on it, and I'll almost certainly put it in, providing that it's written in a NPOV manner. Ral315 (talk) 05:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you, and thank you : )

I have little idea about the processes that you go through in building the signpost, and I'll have to gather my thoughts as to what types of things are worth bringing up (and so may not make "next edition", but as I tend to see quite a few of the discussions/proposals, I may start dropping you some links, at least, if that's amenable to you : ) - jc37 06:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008/9 Wikipedia for Schools

Be ready in a couple of weeks. If you could mention it when it comes out like last year that would be cool let me know if you need info.--BozMo talk 09:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Community Portal

Would you mind if during Wikimania if the Wikipedia weekly template is above the signpost template? I have already done the action, but if you have an objections for any reason i would understand. The Placebo Effect (talk) ^{How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review.} 16:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion log issues

Hi. I noticed you made a comment here about missing deletion log entries, saying it was very rare. Now there is another report at WP:VPT#Misssing entry in deletion log. When you said "very, very rarely", did you mean twice in a few days? —Wknight94 (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

I was wondering whether you want the WikiProject report to make a return to the signpost? If not, it doesn't matter; but with a few weeks to kill now (apart from early August) I should be able to find some WikiProjects to cover. Rudget (logs) 14:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Rudget (logs) 11:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind

I borrowed your RFA support vote. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wikimania signpost story

I finished a story about Wikimania for the signpost, sorry about the delay (and sorry it's a little dull). If you want to know about anything in particular let me know; maybe next week we can cover some of the talks in detail? -- phoebe / (talk to me) 01:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tutorial Finished

Hi there, I have just finished writing a tutorial for the signpost (Found here) and after taking a look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Series/Tutorial I noticed with the addition of my tutorial we now have a total of four tutorials ready to go into the Signpost, therefore I was wondering if the tutorial series could make a return to circulation, the four tutorials that we now have ready to go would give us at least four weeks to write another tutorial (I'd be interested in writing another tutorial if I can find a topic that I am knowledgeable about) and If I drop a line by the Village Pump about us needing people to write short tutorials, I am sure that we would be able to at least come up with a few tutorials to use in the four weeks before we run out of new tutorials to use. Thoughts? Thanks and All the Best, --Mifter (talk) 03:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, oh, could be some overlap there with an upcoming series in the Dispatches, about how to review images at featured content processes. We might want to coordianate. See WP:FCDW. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost question

Whatever happened to the bot that was going to create millions of entries for every town/city on the planet? JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost publishing date

Saturday is the new publishing date for this week; should I move the project report to that date or this Monday that has just gone by? Or neither? Rud get 20:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter either way, really. If we publish those listed now for the 4th, I'll have an added report backed up for the 11th which is useful since I'll be away in that week (others look like they'll be able to have their field for the 11th aswell). Thanks for the quick response. Rud get 20:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Nobel icon

Template:Nobel icon has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Utternutter (talk) 21:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please?

Can we do something for the 2008/9 Wikipedia for Schools? --BozMo talk 17:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN report on The Realist

I had already asked two other editors (including an admin, if I recall) to ask Realist why they were removing my comments, and Realist just removed their comments without replying too. I really did think that was pretty serious—it seemed to me (wrongly) like he was intentionally ignoring any attempts to even associate with me—so I didn't know what else to do. AN probably wasn't a good idea, come to think of it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 06:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to wiki email invitation to Signpost

Ral315, recieved your invitation to contribute to a Signpost article on the Bruce Ivins story. At the moment, I have to go with the cliche "No comment" as far as an interview goes. As I said on my note on Wales talk page, the discussion on the talk pages for Jimmyflathead (talk · contribs) and my user page refer to a real edit war and event. I saw someone speculate online that I or my account was some sockpuppet for the FBI/CIA/Illuminati/etc and thought given events I ought to at least clarify I am in fact, a real person (who doesn't work for the FBI, the CIA, or the illuminati :-). To add to my comment on real names - I support wikipedia as a concept and a site, but the above events were a real wake-up call to the dangers of having your personal life online. (something I have since corrected) I think its important that there always be an option to post under a pseudonym. I suppose it makes it possible for criminals to misbehave. But it also makes it safe for anyone to contribute without having to give up there personal privacy. I also want to add that personally, I find it highly ironic that Mr. Ivins has his own wiki pages now. ppfleiger (talk) 01:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost redirects

Hi Ral. While catching up with Signposts, I was reading the Signpost issue for 2008-07-28, and I noticed some of the "next week's report" links weren't working. I think it was because the next issue was published on 2008-08-09 instead of 2008-08-04. I created some redirects and updated one link on the archive page (see here), but I now realise that I could have changed the direct link on each page to include the correct parameter for the next issue. Not sure which you normally do, so feel free to delete those redirects and change the "next week" dates instead. I also noticed that a move Rudget did left a blue link to an unpublished story, so left a note on his talk page as well. More generally, about those "next week's issue" links, I noticed that when a report is sporadic or an issue is missing, the links break down. For example, this report is followed by this report, but it is difficult to get to the next or previous ones in the series unless you know how many issues forward or back to go. Are there any lists of reports in sequences like that or notes on where the sequences have missing bits? Carcharoth (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Was there meant to be a News and Notes article in the 2008-08-09 issue? I have a few other questions about archive updating and stuff. Is it easy to do this, or is it best for those who deal with the day-to-day stuff to do this to make sure it is done right? Also, there is a thread about the "In the News" report here. Carcharoth (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffpw

Hi Ral, happened to look at User:Ral315/News and notes and noticed a small error. Isaac was actually Jeff's husband. They were married in the Netherlands in 2001, shortly after the Netherlands became the first country to legalize gay marriage. Their wedding photo illustrates the Same-sex marriage in the Netherlands article. --JayHenry (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can verify that info, Ral, on this version of Jeff's talk page, the last before he took down the memorial to Isaac, in The Funeral Speech. Also, if you're looking for more info about his editing, Jeff took most of February thru May 2008 off of Wiki and focused intensely on his other passion, the Hillary Clinton campaign (of note, he adhered to NPOV and COI, and never edited the Clinton article as far as I know, even though he was intensely devoted to her campaign); he had reduced contribs and Wiki participation during that time, returning full strength again in June, shortly before Isaac died on June 27. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ral - apologies I just got your email - it got caught in my anti-spam. Oddly, I'd already corrected the caption in the picture! Thanks very much for this article; it seems great and is apprecaited by Jeff's wiki friends and no doubt his family. Pedro : Chat 08:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

admin stats and poll

Sorry to bother you, I replied with a question. You probably did cover it, though, about whether uploads and admin actions were included in your numbers check. Thanks! :) rootology (T) 01:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rock music WikiProject

I'd like to invite you to join the newly-formed Rock music WikiProject. There's alot of Rock-related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help us get this project off the ground and a few Rock music pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks! --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Return to Signpost Spamlist

Hi, Ral! Thank you for moving me off the Spamlist. I have now returned after a much longer Wikibreak than I thought I'd be on. Can you place me back on again? Thanks! P.S. - You Rock! LaughingVulcan 01:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good!

You do a good job with The Wikipedia Signpost. Thanks for helping to providing everybody with news!! Cricketmania (talk) 03:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject report

I'm sorry, but due to fairly severe illness, it's likely I'll have to miss out a week - I just can't focus long enough to edit the interview I have. =/ I might be able to get it done tomorrow, if I do it the moment I get up. I'll also try and call in some favours and get someone else to do the final work on it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Single-page view of Signpost

It seems like a lot of 2008 releases do not have SPV, as suggested by the red-link on this page (P.S. I keep mixed up between you and Raul654 OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost and crats

Does Signpost report new crats? See Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-07-28/Features_and_admins. If so, I should have been in that one as I became a crat the day before L'Aquatique became an admin. Thank you. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does, but I often overlooked and forgot about mentioning RfB. Just add yourself in. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost "In The News"

What sort of things (if i was interested) would that section contain? «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost "Help Wanted!"

Hi Ral315! This is Emir34 again. I was interested in this "Help Wanted!" thing. I really am good at media and news like this and if you accept you'll be making a perfect choice. I am not an administrator but could I join? If you reject, could you at least write a message at my talkpage? Thanks a lot. Emir34 (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested in taking on the "In the news" section. I get a "Wikipedia" keyword news alert every day on my yahoo mail account. bibliomaniac 1 5 17:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever seen de:Wikipedia:Kurier? It is the german version of the Signpost. There is no editorial staff, it´s written by who want to write. Maybe this model is something for the signpost too? You could open one of your pages as a try and look what you get. Some time ago we vote if we stay with this model or if we change to the Signpost-model. We stick to it, because it is more stable. Yes, sometimes there is a edit-war, but you get used to it as an wikipedian. --195.4.207.211 (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested to with various stories. Please consider me! SwirlBoy 39 19:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I see you've got plenty of responses to your request, but I still thought I'd throw my offer in. I follow news alerts for wiki and wikipedia already in my RSS every day, watchlist and contribute to the tip page, and have real world news writing experience. Let me know if you want my help, Steven Walling (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starting in September, if you need help with "in the news", feel free to ask me. -- Noroton (talk) 03:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in contributing. I have written for a tiny newspaper for over four years, and would like to write for a Wikipedia one. RedThunder 18:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be glad to help a bit, just call when you need me! Jon How's the weather? - talk about me ~~behind my back~~ 19:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. In addition to normal topics, I think we could probably put together a 3-4 week series of articles on the Rfa Review, which is coming up with some very interesting statistical data on the RFA process. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 16:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to help in whatever way I may.--Dark Green (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to help! I've written for a GTA newspaper with a reach of approximately 100,000 people monthly. You may see my blog for more writing samples. PerfectProposal 15:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFArb

Just to let you know, Steve was never an admin, he was using other admin accounts to make actions. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

opening up the Signpost a bit...?

I see you've had a good response to the 'call for help'! - That's fantastic! - I also saw that someone mentioned the fact that the German Wikipedia equivalent publication is of the 'anyone can edit' variety... would you consider maybe opening up an issue or two to this approach to see how it works? - I think it's worth trying! I'd be most interested to hear your thoughts! cheers :-) Privatemusings (talk) 08:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

have you had the chance to think about this yet? - Seeing all of the folk willing to dive in and do some writing is kind of inspirational! - I think it'd be fantastic for the Signpost to offer a wiki platform. whaddya reckon? :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot

Would it be wise for your sign-post bot to ignore retired users? User:BenBurch was flagged with the bot.Yeago (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to help

More than happy to help with whatever excess work you've got over at the Signpost, either regularly or on a case-by-case basis. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 07:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

date linking at the top of the dispatch

Ral, "bound by tradition" cuts no ice with me, nor with a lot of other people; can you expand on the broader implications of this justification in terms of change and stasis on WP, and whether this is purely a personal opinion? It makes a dispatch that is updating policy and style guidelines look foolish when it fails to agree, right at the top, with the major change it announces. Tony (talk) 03:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're neutral in your attitude, and the guidelines have changed, you don't need to get local consensus, any more than editors at every single article need to get consensus to remove DA. But if you want to go through some extra bureaucratic process here, fine, you're in charge of the publication. I just don't agree with the go-slow thing, now that the decision has been made. If you don't mind, I'll direct to you any smirky comments I receive about the disparity between the header and the content of the dispatch. Tony (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned drive-by posting: um ... I think you see a brushfire among computer programmers who are offended that a feature is being dispensed with. The edit summary is misleading. Tony (talk) 04:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoy dealing with snarky comments, especially when they have a legitimate point of contention behind the snark :) More than anything, I just want to ensure that there isn't any strong opposition to the change, since we aren't bound by the MoS, and could conceivably stick with the current format. The last thing I want to do is introduce such a change and then have everyone argue that we should change it back, because when it comes to a weekly publication, it seems odd to.

I just came up with a new idea, as well, that I think I'm going to offer as an option to the other writers: Instead of straight date-linking, which has no real benefit besides adhering to personal date preferences, what do you think about linking it to the other stories in that issue, e.g. "By Tony1, August 25, 2008"? That could be more beneficial than the current method as well. Ral315 (talk) 04:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a "hidden pipe", and since everyone knows that it's futile to click on a date link, no one will follow it up. It's more of a problem than the "1989 in music|1989" easter-egg links that some WikiProjects have said no to, on the basis that no one but year-page enthusiasts (discretionary browsers, we call them) ever clicks on 1989; the intention is wasted. I can't imagine anyone would bother clicking on the date after the author's name. Sorry if I appeared snarky. Tony (talk) 04:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, Ral. A limited selection of positive reactions by WPs is here, for what it's worth. I stopped adding to it weeks ago. Tony (talk) 04:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the unsigned comment, you can decide if you WP:AGF or not, but the short explanation is that I was trying to use Template:Please see and instead used Template:See. The former signs the comment for you, the later does not. Mea Culpa and apologies dm (talk) 08:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double dispatch

Ral, with the double dispatch, I'm not able to figure out how to fix the footer at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-25/Dispatches. But then, I haven't had my morning quota of coffee yet, either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh, why didn't I think of that <smack> ... thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assume bad faith

Hey Ral315. I've just written an essay, User:Haza-w/ABF, outlining my concerns with certain attitudes evident in many participants at RfA. It's similar in outlook to WTHN, and so I was wondering whether you could have a quick read through it, and comment on whether it's unfounded or too cynical, or if there's anything that I've omitted that could be added. (While I'm here, this page is in the red category Category:Rouge admins... could be your own deliberate wit, but I thought I'd point it out.) haz (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage problem

Ceiling Cat (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Favor

Could you do me a favor? I see you were the one that protected Oded Schramm's userpage. I'd like to add a comment saying RIP. Thank you. HPJoker ^{Leave me a message} 22:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suggestion

Hi there, I have a suggestion you could use on your Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost. To reduce space on user pages, could you add a little "Hide" and "Show" button. I think it could be useful for users that would like to hide it or for others that want it to be shown.:) Cheers! - --SwisterTwister (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP DYK undermanned

Hey Ryan, we've been doing a bit of housekeeping here at DYK, and it is a bit undermanned. I figured it might be worth popping something in the signpost to gee up interest:

DYK updates have been a bit slow and there's a bit of a shortage of admins actively involved. We are asking folks who listed themselves on Wikipedia:Did you know/Admins to update details on this page - User:Olaf Davis/DYKadmins, so we can grade everyone's involvement. Any admin keen to get involved is most welcome as a few of the regulars would appreciate a break!

How's that? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:OdedSchramm

Hi Ral, is it normal practice to protect the talkpage of a deceased Wikipedian before his on-wiki friends and collaborators have a chance to say anything? From his talkpage, it does look like there are a few who might want to - although they might have come here asking themselves if that were the case. Was there vandalism of some sort that led to the protection, maybe? Avruch^T 13:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Ral315 I have enjoyed when our Wikinews/Signpost paths cross and hope to be able to collaborate with you in the future. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 02:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dispatches

Ral, we're starting to run out of Dispatch ideas and people willing to write them; meeting the weekly deadline is also a strain on me, and although I find others willing to help out, no one does so consistently, so the weight is always on my shoulders. I can continue to drum up interviews, or even write something short and simple each week if needed, but the idea of going to bi-weekly Dispatches has also come up. What do you think? Churn out something short and simple and probably trivial each week, or move to bi-weekly, with the option to fill in the weekly slot if we have something worth saying? I'll follow here to keep the conversation together. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you'd like to do is fine with me. Bi-weekly is fine, but you can go to a "whenever there's a story" type of schedule as well (this would accommodate instances where you have a few good stories that you want to print immediately). I would try to keep high-quality reports at any cost, because Dispatches is consistently well-written and very thorough, and I'd hate to see that lost in an attempt to maintain an unfeasible weekly schedule. Ral315 (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I like that; I don't want to just fill in any old thing, even though I could. So we may skip a week every now and then, in which case I'll leave a note on the Newsroom page. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better late than never...

Ral, as discussed for signpost. The 2008/9 Schools Wikipedia is now available for browsing here to allow final changes before (free) downloads are launched 15 Oct. The schools wikipedia has millions of users offline and the online version is just overtaking Citizendium on Alexa so improvement is worthwhile.. project page at Wikipedia:Wikipedia CD Selection has more info. --BozMo talk 10:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WMUK Signpost story

Hi Ral, just a heads up that I've written a brief story for the Signpost at User:The wub/post, hope this is ok to publish. It's evidently been far too long since I wrote anything for the post, what was the template for the nifty formatting/byline again? Anyway, I hope to contribute a bit more often in future. As always, thanks for all the hard work you do as editor. the wub "?!" 13:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion log again

We had a short conversation about the deleted deletion logs (Oh, the irony :D) quite a while ago, so I figured I'd give you a poke about it again. By now, we have our very own, shiny robots.txt, so what about we simply undelete the deletion logs and add them to the local robots.txt? That should solve the Google problem, at least. --Conti|✉ 13:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MAOR USERPAGE KATZ

YOUR USERPAGE WAS BELOW THE MINIMUM KAT QUOTA BUT I HAZ FIXED IT FOR U. Ceiling Cat (talk) 06:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updating old links

Hi Ral. I recently pointed someone to an old Signpost story, and realised one of the links to a discussion needed updating to point to the archived discussion. Wanted to let you know in case you had any objections. Carcharoth (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost_not_arriving?

Not sure if there is a bot muck-up but there does seem to be a delivery issue of the Signpost not arriving. -- Banjeboi 21:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I havn't gotten one for a while either. - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 03:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Chris (talk) 20:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing since september 15 issue here either. Waacstats (talk) 10:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost - Search engine improvements

Hi Ral, I can write a short piece (or a couple of paragraphs for BRION) about this. However, to avoid repeating a previous disappointment, I'd like your assurance that you are willing, in principle, to publish something about this topic. Please let me know on my talk page so I can start working on it. Thanks, --Zvika (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews

Good day! I saw your plea for writers, and I'd like to help. Specifically, I'd like to try doing a few interviews, as I've always liked reading them and I'd like to see more of them. I've never done an interview before, so how would I go about doing it? Email? Secret sub-page?

I went through the archives, and to the best of my knowledge, the following people have been interviewed: Matthewedwards, Ruhrfisch, Mav, Rick Block, John Broughton, Domas Mituzas, Michael Snow, Jimbo Wales, Florence Devouard, Sue Gardner, and Erik Möller. While Jimbo can obviously be interviewed again, naturally I'll try to find users who haven't been interviewed before. Perhaps User:Ealdgyth, User:SandyGeorgia, or User:Raul654. What do you think? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Film Infobox

Given that you were the Admin that protected the page I figured I would come to you. After an extensive discussion, it has been determined that the infobox should not have any external links present in the box. So, could you remove the external links section and information from the template? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I read the Signpost less often than I'd like to, but when I do, it's always informative and enlightening. I caught your most recent note by pure chance, and am sorry to hear it's become a burden. I'd like to find a way to contribute on occasion. But more than that, I'd like to thank you for your persistent efforts with it -- it's an important part of the glue that keeps this wacky community together. -Pete (talk) 09:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback feature

Hey there, i am on wikipedia since 2006. Now a days i find many times vandalism across it so can you please grant me the ability of rollback feature so that i can fight the vandalism here, i would be very thankful for your any other advice. BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 10:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take care in evaluating this request for rollback rights. The editor has not exhibited good judgement as can be seen from his history of bad speedy deletion tagging [2]. Also, the claim for being an editor since 2006 is completely at odds with his actual edit history showing an earliest edit of May 30, 2008. Note that lying is something this editor has done in the past with him claiming to have taken pictures with his own camera when they were taken frome the web. [3]. -- Whpq (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has also requested rollback from 6 admins and been denied 3 times already by myself, Friday and Yannismarou. Shell ^babelfish 22:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Even though I'm in the category, I haven't granted rollback in quite a while, and I certainly don't plan to do so here. Thanks for the heads-up. Ral315 (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost Bot

The signpost bot usually posts the signpost weekly on my talk page/signpost page, but the latest one it's posted was the September 15 th issue. Is there a problem with the bot? That's almost two months ago. NeonFire (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of this -- it's just that I've been too busy to actually tell the bot what to do. I'll send out a full run tomorrow, but tonight I need to sleep :) Ral315 (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ral, if you ever would like some help sending out the post I'd be happy to lend a hand. I take orders well. :D The offer's always up for grabs. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 03:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

... for the kindness (but my prose does stink, and I couldn't round up a copyeditor this time). Please dip in if you see anything that needs attn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

thanks for the kind review of How Wikipedia Works! I appreciate it. I'll add just a short note with where readers can find the full text, if that's ok.

What needs to be done at the Signpost? Now I have more time and can help out more :) best, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 05:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How Wikipedia Works

I enjoyed your signpost article on How Wikipedia Works. It seems to me that you should create an article. There should also be a category for books about WP and possibly a template.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

There's been talk of getting a new editor. Thought I'd let you know that I think you're a very good editor, and now that the timing seems to be back on course, I don't believe dropping you as Editor-in-Chief would make sense. And, er, that's all. ;) AGK 17:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, very glad to see you back in action! Best wishes, – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes to self

User:Cryptic C62/Workspace
Send e-mail

[4]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost bot

Is the signpost posting bot working properly? The Signpost hasn't arrived on my talk page for quite a while even though it has been published. Thanks! – ukexpat (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

Hello Ral315, I was wondering what is the status of the writer for the 'arbitration report'? I saw that there has been no regular editor for weeks and I would be willing to take on the regular authorship of that column if Seresin does not plan on continuing. Icewedge (talk) 07:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I guess I can try to write the "In The News" section, see User:Icewedge/ITN. Icewedge (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SirFozzie's Signpost answers

  1. What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?
  2. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
  3. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
  4. How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?
  5. What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?
  6. Why do you think users should vote for you?

I'm an administrator on the English-language Wikipedia.
As a filing party? Several. They include: Great Irish Famine, The Troubles, Mantanmoreland, R. fiend, and Geogre-WMC
Because I have been one of the more outspoken critics of the way ArbCom is currently structured, and I've always been taught that if you want to criticize something, you better be willing to fix it. Plus ArbCom needs new viewpoints and new blood.
I think they have made significant missteps on several cases (the Mantanmoreland one comes to mind). Others, I don't agree with, but can see where they're coming from.
Questions about Confidentiality can never be a yes/no question, because it's so vague in general. Would I share information with other parties that would violate Wikipedia's privacy policy? No. Would I make a decision based on confidential information without making it public? Yes, but I would note there's information that I cannot release that was the reason behind it.
Because Wikipedia needs ArbCom to change and become more accountable, and more open. I think that I can do that for Wikipedia, along with other fine, qualified candidates. This is a chance for the average member of the Wikipedia community to directly influence how the encyclopedia changes over the next 2-3 years. SirFozzie (talk) 10:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

from Dream Focus

 1. What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?

I am the administrator of the Voltron wiki

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

No official arbitrators cases. I try to discuss things with people, and fully understand everyone's mindset. I believe that's the main skill a good arbitrator needs.

 3. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

To help people.

 4. How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?

That'll take some time to get into. I'll try to find the time later to answer it, and all the other questions asked on the official questions page.

 5. What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?

If the information could be revealed, without identifying the person who submitted it, who wishes to remain secret, then there is no reason not to reveal it. And I would always seek to make certain the information is valid, not just something made up by an enemy of the person to attempt to manipulate us.

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

I think I have handled most things rather well. I don't take things personally, I stay focus on the subject at hand, and I do my best to fully understand everyone's opinion. I strive for what is fair above all else. Please vote for me, and I promise to do my best. Dream Focus (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom interview answers (Jayvdb)

What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?
- Adminship on English Wikipedia (September 2007), English Wikisource (November 2007), Multilingual Wikisource (November 2007) Wikimedia Commons (February 2008), Latin Wikisource (July 2008), and Incubator in a "vandalism-only" capacity. (October 2008)
- Checkuser on English Wikisource (March 2008)
- Oversight on English Wikipedia (October 2008)
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
I have not been a party to any cases, I was an Arbcom clerk for six months until mid July 2008, and have submitted evidence and opinions a few times, privately in some cases where all parties were shown the bulk of my submissions.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
To reduce the friction between Arbcom and the community.
How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?
This year has had lots of outcomes that fall on the extremities of the scale. Many of the cases were completed within reasonable times and obtained a workable outcome. While it was not a typical case, Poetlister was the success of 2008. The Omnibus and SlimVirgin-Lar cases were especially troubled, as I dont believe they achieved anything except pain, coupled with a lot speculation and disappointment in the process and result. Orangemarlin brought to a head many problems with the way the committee was working and communicating, both within the committee and to the community.
What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?
Confidentiality is vital for personal security and well being. It is a basic principle of humanity. However, confidentiality can also be a guise for a lack of accountability. Wherever possible and appropriate, evidence should be given as much scrutiny as possible; the other parties should see it as much of it as is appropriate, and the community should be given as much of it as is reasonable. I have always sought confirmation before passing on private information/correspondence, stating who will be receiving it and why I feel it is necessary, even when I have submitted evidence privately to Arbcom. My approach will not change. I also feel that no arbitrator should ever make decisions that bind someone, based on evidence that only I have seen; I can understand if someone doesnt trust all of the committee, however a majority should agree with any conclusions, or at worst, one or two additional sets of eyes are needed. I have answered this question in more detail on the Q&A page.
Why do you think users should vote for you?
I have clearly articulated objectives, and the skills, experience and passion to achieve them.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman's answers

What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?
Administrator. I find it keeps me quite busy enough. My logs show that I have used the sysop tools extensively: Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
I have been involved in eight cases, more than any other candidate. I brought four cases which resulted in bans or sanctions that I had requested. Two cases were brought against me, though there were no findings against me, and I was named as a witness in two other cases. Jehochman ^Talk 20:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
My goals are to improve the reputation of the Committee and to help maintain Wikipedia's content at the highest possible standards. Jehochman ^Talk 20:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?
I think the Committee has done a good job, though they have sometimes failed to communicate effectively with the Community. They eventually come to the right conclusion in almost every case. One decision that I criticized heavily was Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman, but they just took action to correct the worst problems with that case. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph was a very difficult problem that was resolved well because all of the individuals involved were protected, including the user who got banned. Obviously, some cases this year dragged on far too long, such as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar. Jehochman ^Talk 20:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?
The key idea is that confidential information should never be shared without permission. I would normally want to share evidence with the accused to given them a chance to explain. If there was no permission to share, I might have to disregard the evidence because it is not fair to consider only one side of a story. However, there might be extraordinary circumstances when it would not be possible to share the evidence. Jehochman ^Talk 20:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think users should vote for you?
Users should vote for me because my experiences with arbitration, both positive and negative, would be valuable to the Committee. I can definitely empathize with the concerns of the typical user who finds themselves at arbitration. It can be a daunting experience.

Additionally, even with my substantial volume of administrative work, I have continued working on articles. I still remember that Wikipedia is for generating high quality content. Jehochman ^Talk 20:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rlevse's answers

What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?
Admin, Bureaucrat, Checkuser, arb clerk, ScoutingWikiProject coordinator, and admin on WikiCommons
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
I Gave evidence in the Footnoted Quotes and Sarah Palin wheel war cases, never a named party, arb clerk for several cases
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
Because users kept asking me too and I feel I can contribute positively in that role
How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?
Arbcom took some hits this year for sure, but it is all fixable. Most of the issues seem to relate to transparency, communicating with community, and apparent splits amongst the arbs themselves. This does not mean everyone will always agree. Reasonable people will not always agree. Arbcom rulings need to be clearer (like all desysops have not always specified if RFAs are available or only an arbcom petition to regain the bit) and more explanation, especially for less obvious rulings would do a world of good. As I said elsewhere, I will do my best to improve arbcom but if elected I would be only 1/15 of that committee. I thought the desyssopping of CSCWEM was done well. He had already been given many chances to respond, and the acted soundly and swiftly. A case I was pleased with was Abtract-Collectonian. This only took two weeks and was a good ruling. Two poor things from this year are the slow case of case handling (especially the Cla58 case) and the Orangemarlin situation where which was released onwiki from private hearings and then they disagreed and retracted are certainly poor examples. I was involved in research on this year's Poetlister case, one of the biggest cases ever.
What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?
Certain matters require confidentiality, privacy, common decency and decorum. Evidence submitted privately that is in fact private should stay with arbcom. If this info were pertinent to the case and privacy was involved, it could affect the case without being disclosed, but that would be the exception not the norm. However, privacy should never be a veil to hide behind to avoid accountability.
Why do you think users should vote for you?
I have a lot of experience in matters arbcom deals with from my work at ANI, SSP/RFCU (over 700 cases), arb clerking, and arbitration enforcement. I feel my judgment had been generally sound and fair and I can help make wiki, including arbcom, better.

— Rlevse • Talk • 22:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hemlock Martinis' answers

What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?
I have been an administrator since April 2007. I was a candidate in the 2007 Arbitration Committee elections, where I was defeated primarily due to my relative newness at the time. I've learned a lot in the past year and feel that I'm ready for a seat on the Committee.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
I have not been in an Arbitration case as either a petitioner or the petitioned. I've weighed in on some cases I felt particularly notable, including the Durova case and the allegations of apartheid case.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
Because ArbCom needs reform, and I feel I'd be good at that. We need cases deliberated in a timely manner, with judgments given that accurately reflect the situation and don't bow to external pressures or established editors. We're drifting away from our prime directive of writing an encyclopedia. The community is being consumed by petty differences, internal struggles and power trips. The same energy and enthusiasm that was used in Wikipedia's infancy to build the best resource in the world is now feeding upon itself. We need a rudder to right the ship. We need a strong hand amidst the storm that is Wikipedia's adolescence. We need something new, we need something better and we need it now. And in that respect, I want to help.
How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?
Overall, I think ArbCom was weak this year in handling its responsibilities for the community. The C68-FM-SV and SlimVirgin-Lar cases in particular deserved a harder look at the continued actions of all participants; ArbCom should've been more willing to hand out sanctions for disruptive and unwarranted behavior. I think the unwillingness of ArbCom to step up in those case was detrimental to its authority.

I'm happy to say that it was not all bad news, though. In particular I was pleased with Newyorkbrad's levelheaded and fair approach to cases, especially with regards to the recent IRC-related proposals in Piotrus 2. As far as cases go, the Palestine-Israel articles case from January demonstrated some good rulings on what many editors would shrug off as a "content dispute". I particularly appreciated the creation of the working group on ethnic/nationalist conflicts, although I do have disagreements with the findings of said group and noticeboard. The comprehensive and useful thinking, as well as the outside-the-box approach, is what I would like to see be the hallmark of all major ArbCom cases.
What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?
This is an incredibly complex and multi-faceted situation, and it's almost one that should solely be decided on a case by case basis. There are two spheres we as arbitrators must consider. First, we have to look at the secret evidence as it relates to the accused. One of the most fundamental precepts of any legal system based on fairness and justice is the ability to face one's accuser and to hear the evidence made against one's self. That should only be suspended in extraordinary circumstances, and even then the accused should at least be given a summary of the evidence. Second, we have to look at the impression ArbCom gives to the community when handling secret evidence. The community should be made aware when secret evidence is used, and be given a summary of what the evidence contains. This would help build a measure of good faith between both the community and the Committee. The community needs to trust the Committee to only use secret evidence when privacy matters are a concern and not to become a Court of Star Chamber. The Committee needs to trust the community's ability to distinguish between secret trials and confidential evidence. These are the fundamentals I would use when assessing secret evidence and its role in a case.
Why do you think users should vote for you?
I could go on for hours about ArbCom's flaws, but fundamentally you're not voting on ArbCom - you're voting for or against me. And to be honest, there's ample reason to not vote for me and maybe even to vote against me. I've done some stupid things as an administrator. I gave Giano a cooldown block a month after I got the tools and was eviscerated by the community for it. I've been called "anti-science" for misinterpreting SPOV. I blocked a trolling IP for voting against me in the last ArbCom election. I'm not exactly orthodox when it comes to Wikipedia policy: I've proposed an Editorial Council and once suggested we rename all positions of trust (arbitrator, administrator, bureaucrat, etc.) to Imperial Roman titles (praetor, quaestor, legate, etc.). If you wanted to vote against me, you certainly wouldn't be unjustified.

So why should you vote for me? I learn from my mistakes. I now oppose cooldown blocks and excessive civility patrols (see my "House test" in my candidate Q&A). I listen. Please feel free to peruse my talk pages archives and see instances in which I do so. I haven't been around here since time immemorial, so I've got no allegiances and fewer enemies. This makes me ideal for fair and neutral arbitration. At the same time, I'm also not afraid of any of you. I can distinguish between the times when we need to crack some skulls, and the times in which a lighter hand is needed. I have the temperament, the experience and the judgment needed to be an effective and judicious arbitrator.

But the reason you should vote for me, foremost among all others, is the need for change. I know that's a slogan that's been tossed around many a time this year, and I know many of you probably rolled your eyes upon reading it here. But it's not cliched. We need change. The old way isn't working. As Mikhail Gorbachev said, "We can't go on living like this." We need to step back, reassess what we as a community and as individuals are doing - are we pursuing vendettas and feuds, or are we improving the encyclopedia? - and fix whatever we're doing wrong.

I believe in this community. We wrote over 2.6 million articles and went from the doldrums of the Internets to being one of its defining features. But we've gone astray from our rightful path. On any other site, this would mark the start of an inevitable decline, but not for us. We're not afraid to fix what's wrong, correct what's mistaken or improve what's broken. We now must harness that same boldness and channel it into self-correction. Please elect me, and help us preserve in peace what we have won in war. Thank you. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fish and karate's answers

What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?
A I am administrator on this wiki. I have no other positions other than user on any other wiki.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
A Almost all workship stuff. This is a list of all arbitration pages I've contributed to in some manner. Some in a minor way, some more so. /Sarah Palin protection wheel war, /C68-FM-SV, /Betacommand 2, /Geogre-William M. Connolley,/Tango, /Mantanmoreland, /Anonimu, /Alkivar, /Pigsonthewing 2, /Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war, /Philwelch, /Husnock. Here's a statement I found I made for a case that wasn't accepted, and here's one that was.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
I would like to see Arbcom improve its relationship with the community, and function in a constructive and valuable manner. I believe that I can help the Arbcom achieve this, and would like to play a greater part in making Wikipedia work better.
How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?
A For the most part, things have been okay. Not always excellent, but reasonable. A case handled exceptionally well was Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tango - an appropriate verdict, arrived at in a timely manner. The big case of the past year, perhaps, which had some plusses and minuses, was Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV. While I believe the JzG-Viridae issue should not have been merged into this case, and the time the case took was regrettable, the final findings were very good. As for poorly, the OrangeMarlin case was handled poorly. Discussions should only ever be made in private if there is very good reasons for them to be private. This did not meet that threshold in any way, and the case was a huge mistake. OrangeMarlin was given no opportunity to state his case (see [5]), and this was not acceptable. That it was vacated was entirely appropriate. I believe this case was the primary cause of the recent loss in faith the community has suffered with regards to Arbcom.
What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?
Evidence should be shared with other parties so far as privacy is maintained. If a piece of evidence that would be detrimental to another party is submitted, I believe the party at risk of detriment should be aware of such evidence, and recieve some kind of summary (at the very least) with any identifiable information excised. Being tried by private evidence without being made aware of that evidence's existence, or the general content of such evidence, is unacceptable.
Why do you think users should vote for you?
I'll do a good job; I'm bright, experienced, trustworthy, and ethical. I believe strongly that Arbcom exists to serve the requirements of the community, and would strive to further this in thought and in act. fish&karate 13:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Privatemusings Signpost answers

Hi Ral, being online, I thought I'd drop these in as requested.. feel free to poke me with any follow ups, or for any reason at all :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 10:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?
  2. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
  3. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
  4. How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?
  5. What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?
  6. Why do you think users should vote for you?

I'm a contributor to wikiversity, commons, and meta-wiki, as well as occasional activity at wikisource, and a dipped toe at simple - I an administrator on the WMF ChapCom wiki, my only official 'position' :-) Privatemusings (talk) 10:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have followed many cases quite closely, commented in several, and was the subject of one. It's my belief that the arbcom is currently systemically flawed, and that we set up some of our best users to fail.
I have 5 'big ideas' which you can read more about here shortly, and I would be proud to be a new broom to clear out some of the many cobwebs around the arbcom.
It's my view that the committee performs embarrassingly poorly, failing to lead, failing to engage the community, and listen properly, and critically, failing to resolve, or de-escalate problematic sitations. The 'Orangemarlin' debacle was widely criticised, more worringly the mistakes were not internalised and resolved at all, in my view - a private internal committee vote, without an 'on wiki' arb process, banned another user shortly afterwards. If this concerns you... vote for me!
This is a very sensitive area, and basically there's no 'right answer' except to be firm in adhering to high ethical standards. Whilst certain evidence may be necessarily confidential, I consider it basic tenet of fairness to allow parties to 'hear the charges and evidence against them' in order to fully respond. No Josef K, thanks...
Check out my 5 big ideas for the main reasons - but I'll add that I'm polite, honest, care about the project and its goals, and represent a real chance for positive change in an important spot for the community. As I've said in my candidate statement, if you disagree, and would like to Oppose, please consider making me your sole 'Oppose' vote - it's also my view that these are unhealthy for the community - and I'll take 'em on the chin with a smile :-) Vote Privatemusings!

thanks to Ral for dropping these questions in, and I'm happy to field any follow ups, or discuss anything further at the appropriate election subpages :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 10:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ps. added a link to my '5 big ideas' in point 6 (as part of this edit) - hope that's ok :-) Privatemusings (talk) 09:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coren's Signpost answers

What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?
- I'm an admin, a clerk of ArbCom, and an (inactive) BAG member, on enpw. I am also an OTRS volunteer for the info-en and permissions lists.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
- I was a participant in the Sadi Carnot case.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
- Simply put: because I think I can make a positive difference. I used to think one would have to be crazy to run for ArbCom; turns out that you only need to be crazy about Wikipedia. I run because I care about what happens.
How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?
- I think ArbCom is feeling the pain of its increasingly conservative outlook and rendering increasingly poor decisions because it looks too much at how things once were to notice how things have become. The problems facing the Wikipedia of today and tomorrow aren't those of three years ago, but the Committee fails to adapt.
  I think the handling of cases where real world factionalism have seeped into Wikipedia conflicts has been poor in general. ArbCom still acts, and proposes remedies, under the presumption that most participants in disputes do so for the good of the encyclopedia but disagree on how to go about it. This used to be mostly true, and is still true in some cases, but there are now battles being waged about real world concerns where Wikipedia is just another battleground and the participants do not care about writing an encyclopedia.
  ArbCom needs to learn to protect the encyclopedia and editors from those warriors who have gotten very good at gaming with faux civility, edging the rules, and other subtle manipulation of a system that was designed with the presumption that, ultimately, everyone was trying to improve the encyclopedia. Admonitions to "play nice" are futile gestures when participants are not of good faith, and it's high time the Committee started waking up to that reality.
What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?
- Confidentiality is the primary obligation entrusted on arbitrators. Transparency demands that we share as much of it as is possible, but to do so without ever risking breaches of privacy or security. This means that yes, rarely, decisions may have to be made based on information that cannot be made public; but as much of it as possible should be explained.
Why do you think users should vote for you?
- Because I can do the job. I'm not a revolutionnary trying to topple the system, which mostly works, nor am I blind to the desperately needed improvements and the glaring flaws. I am willing to yell when things go wrong, and to support the system when things go right. I respect rules and traditions, but I am not slavishly obeying just because.
  Ultimately, however, editors should vote for me because they can trust that I will continue what I've always done: remain impartial in disputes, avoid needless drama, be quick to act decisively, but most importantly to be willing to admit and correct the errors I make. To err is human, to act as though one is infallible is what destroys trust.

— Coren ^(talk) 16:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kmweber's answers

What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?
None
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
No
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
I seek to disrupt its operations as much as possible so as to minimize its negative impact on the community while we wait for the community to develop the revolutionary courage and consciousness necessary to throw off this illegitimate body altogether
How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?
Its mere existence is illegitimate; therefore, everything it does is ipso facto wrong.
What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?
See above; however, as a matter of general principle I believe all Wikipedia dispute-resolution processes should be totally open. Anything else is ripe for abuse, and makes people feel (quite justifiably) that they weren't given a fair hearing. Nothing trumps that.
Why do you think users should vote for you?
I am the only one running whose ultimate aim is to return power to the community, where it rightfully belongs. All the other candidates--even those who truly seek AC reform--are, at best, only treating the symptoms. AC's unreliability and corruptness and shadowiness are not the basic problems with it--though they are problems, to be sure. The basic problem lies with its mere existence. No dispute-resolution entity in a "community project" can hope to hold any legitimacy if it was not a creation of the community in the first place. I believe the vast majority of the Wikipedia community recognizes this; they only put up with it because it's "the best we have" and because those with a vested interest in this corrupt status quo are so powerful as to make the bulk of the community too timid to do anything. The Revolution will come eventually, as the community develops its revolutionary courage and revolutionary consciousness, but in the meantime those of us who are brave and aware enough to speak out need to do our part to mitigate the AC's inherently dangerous influence.

Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:AnthonyQBachler —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC). What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis? None[reply]

Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity? Not on wikipedia.

Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee? It would look good on my resume, and I am looking to get more involved in wikipedia than I have been these last several years.

How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Wikipedia hasn't come to a crashing halt, so I wont criticise anything they have done.

What is your opinion on confidentiality? As an arbitrator no information other than the decisions on the committee is appropriate for release.

If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? No.

Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public? Yes.

Why do you think users should vote for you? I bring to the committee several benefits. I am a member in good standing of MENSA, I am a veteran, have previously held a security clearance, and I am a mature responsible citizen.

Hersfold's response (withdrawing)

Unfortunately, due to time constraints off-wiki, I've decided I need to withdraw from the election. Thank you for the interview offer, but I don't really have the time to spare for the election or (if I were to be elected) the Arbitration Committee. I'll leave a detailed reasoning on my candidate talk page that you're welcome to quote in lieu of my responses to the questions. Thanks again, and best of luck with the Signpost. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom questions ...

from White Cat

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

What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?
None. -- Cat ^chi? 11:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
I have been involved with four arbitration cases plus an ongoing case. In all cases I was an "involved party". -- Cat ^chi? 11:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
I feel arbcom is broken and needs some fresh blood. Among the things that are broken is...
- ...an overal lack of communication & slow response rate,
- ...inability to actually resolve disputes,
- ...how evidence is ignored at times,
- ...the ridiclous length of some cases
...comes to my mind

-- Cat ^chi? 11:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?
I can't think of a single case where arbcom had done an exceptionally well job within the past three years. Arbcom performance had been mediocre at best.
I strongly feel arbcom had done an exceptionally poor job in handling various cases.
- Among the ones I observed closely was the three year old ongoing case concerning a stalker. I feel remedies discussed today should have been passed three years ago at the first case.
- I also feel the two "episode and character" case had been exeptionaly inadequate in resolving the actual dispute. Arbcom has went out of their way to ignore some of the objections raised.
-- Cat ^chi? 11:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?
If Privacy Policy allows it nothing should be kept confidential. It may be better to keep some evidence confidential during an ongoing investigation but once the case is over the evidence should be made public. Otherwise the community will slowly loose their confidence in arbcom. -- Cat ^chi? 11:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Why do you think users should vote for you?
This is a question everyone will have a different answer. I sincerely believe the reader should be deciding this alone. -- Cat ^chi? 11:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press on Tuesday, but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

from Lankiveil

Hi Ral315. Thanks for giving me and the other candidates another forum to present our views so that the community can make an informed choice.

What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?
I am an admin here on English Wikipedia, an (inactive) admin at English Wikinews, as well as a sysop on an in-house Wiki we use at my company.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
Only as an observer.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
I feel that the community has lost faith in the committee, and in a large part this is because it is, to an extent, dominated by an "elite". I think that by coming in "from the outside" and lending a hand, I can help the encyclopædia by making sensible, commonsense, drama-free calls that restores ArbCom is a functional part of the project.
How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?
There is a tendency to focus on the occasional badly handled case, which gets a lot of negative press, and not on most of the cases the ArbCom handle, which are dealt with efficiently, promptly, and non-controversially. I have gone into some depth on my questions page as to a couple of cases I thought could have been handled better.
What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?
Confidentality is important, and it should be respected. If evidence is submitted to the committee under the understanding that it should remain private, then I will not share it outside the commitee. However, I would endeavour to make as much information as I could on ongoing cases public, to ensure that the ArbCom (and I) remain as transparent as possible.
Why do you think users should vote for you?
My record speaks for itself - four years of steady contributions, without any of the drama, controversy, and upheaval that has occured around some other members of the community. Voters who vote for me are voting for a steady hand on the wheel; I'm not glamourous or flashy, but I can get the job done.

Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

from Casliber

Thanks Ral, here they are. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?
I have been an admin since March 2007 on en.wiki. I do a bit on commons but hold no positions there. I have been active in several wikiprojects (birds, dinos, and medicine)
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
Only mentioned in one - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 but not singled out for sanctions.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
I thought as a psychiatrist and old-hand people observer, I may have some extra skills in difficult cases in helping figure out an editor's ability to accept responsibility or edit collaboratively with others. I also do alot of article writing and I guess have ideas on how to keep the pedia growing.

How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 didn't achieve a great deal, but given the underlying problems with notability and arbcom's brief, it was always going to be tricky. Generally a good sign of a good decision is a minimum of fuss and everyone carrying on as usual. Thus the good cases don't 'stand out'. I will try to think of a specific one.

What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?
I can see situations where safety issues arise that material just has to stay private (eg stalking). Thus there are times where a decision might have to be made without much of an explanation. The trick is figuring out what the general community needs to know and where to draw the line.

Why do you think users should vote for you?
apart from above, I have been uninvolved with this area to date. This means I may be more impartial when it comes to arbitrating on people or situations close to recent or current arbs. As doctors shouldn't treat themselves or family members (for loss of objectivity and its impact on decision making), so too a few outside figures may be helpful for arbcom. However, if the community doesn't see this as a good thing so be it. I also like the idea of a level playing field and that we are all in this together. I get down and 'muck in' at DYK and FAC, and sometimes GA. I like the idea that arbs are mucking in and part of the community, and not editing little outside cases or matters related to cases. This isn't rocket science and we don't need to be so specialised. Finally, I am (slightly) more of an ideas person than process person; a good committee has a mix of both and I think there are more process people in and running for arbcom (my impression anyway, but I could be wrong)

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press on Tuesday, but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

from James F.

My responses:

User privs on public wikis:
enwiki

Sysop/Arbitrator/CheckUser/OverSight

metawiki

Sysop/Bureaucrat

commonswiki

Sysop

Also a few other things like OTRS, WMF CommsCom, IRC GC, Foundationwiki access, Wikimania team, etc.
Obviously, lots of cases as an Arbitrator. Also, I was mentioned in a case in 2006, reminding me of my own policy about appropriate decorum.
From [candidate statement], "I've decided to stand again because I believe it is what I am best at providing to the enwiki community, and, more importantly, that this is of value over and above that which some/many others would provide."
I'm not sure it's appropriate for me to comment on my and my fellow Arbitrators' actions; that's for the community to decide.
I think confidentiality is a matter of great importance to the community, and something that we should all expect of the Committee; only with permission (though I would expect us to continue with our policy of outlining to the parties concerns expressed; and yes, but only if I strongly felt there was a good reason so to do, and that it was for the project's benefit.
From my answer to a question, "I think that the community is best served by a Committee with a spectrum of experiences and points of view on the various topics that surround our community, so that the widest range of responses is considered appropriately. Having helped to create Arbitration, I suppose I offer more of a reflective position to the discussions, both around individual cases and also on meta-issues like evolving and reforming the Committee to better serve the community. I do not see the inputs of "new" and "old" ("seasoned"?) in competition at all, but instead as each complementing the other."

Curious as to why this wasn't asked on the [obvious place] (and why at such short notice :-)), but hope this helps.

James F. (talk) 12:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From WilyD

What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?
I am administrator here and on commons.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
I have made statements about whether the committee should accept or not in a number of requests; I'm not sure how many actually became cases. I have presented tidbits of evidence as an outside observer in several. I was a named party and full participant in Sarah Palin Wheel War case
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
I want to offer the option to the electorate of a platform based on a stronger rule of policies and less exhemptions for popular/established editors than the current ArbCom practices. Too much I've felt that the choices were personality based rather than platform based in these elections, and we've had a choice of "Whose judgement to I generally trust?" and not "Who will do the things I'm looking for from ArbCom?". I want to offer the community the latter option.
How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?
Cases handled well stick out far less than those handled badly. 9/11 conspricacies was handled well as far as I saw. Handled reasonably quickly - sanction has come about as a result of the case, and there's been less further disruption. The time taken in C68-FM-SV-ABC-123-OMGWTFBBQ with little to no communication really shook my faith in the ArbCom. In my own case (Sarah Palin Wheel War, as above), lack of timely feedback to participants was also a problem (though my related stress levels were much higher, no doubt exacerbating my perception of the problem.
What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?
Where there is a need for privacy, or a reasonable request for privacy, that ought to be honoured. This is not the same as confidence - other participants, and in most cases, the wider community, must be allowed to understand what goes on with the ArbCom whereever possible. In a cases where the information might comprimise someone's real world privacy, I would not reveal the information, although unless merely acknowledging its existence effectively "gave it away" I would at least note that additional information had been considered which couldn't be shared.
Why do you think users should vote for you?
Users who feel the ArbCom is too lax in enforcing policy should vote for me.

From Cool Hand Luke

What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?
I am an admin on English Wikipedia.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
I have added commentary and analysis to a number ArbCom cases, and I added a non-trivial amount of evidence to the Mantanmoreland case. I was also named as a party to a case in 2005, but no evidence or findings mentioned me.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
I'm running because ArbCom is in need of reform. It must be made speedier, more transparent, and more of a servant to the community.
How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?
I don't think there were any stand-out cases this year, but I pick RFAR/Tango as a case that went reasonably well. This case had the potential to be enormously dramatic, but ArbCom handled it in such a way that the problem de-escalated, while making an important statement about the necessity of having uninvolved admins issue blocks. Even in this case, however, the ultimate remedy was not seriously considered until late in the day. The OrangeMarlin affair was a dramatic fiasco—a stunning failure—but I'm not sure if it even counts as a case. The combined Omnibus RFAR/C68-FM-SV case was also a failure, for lasting over four months, feeding drama and wasting hour upon hour of editors' time. The committee needs to work on speed and transparency.
What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?
Evidence submitted to confidence to ArbCom must be held in confidence. That is not open for debate. However, if the evidence is used to sanction a third party, the third party should be afforded an opportunity to respond to the allegations. Once the relevant parties are given a fair process, non-public evidence can be used to make decisions.
Why do you think users should vote for you?
Because I'm an outsider with a strong independent streak and a history of analytical work. I like to get to the bottom of things, and am not satisfied with cloistered hearings and evidence which cannot withstand the rigors of cross-examination. I believe that an effective ArbCom must be transparent and accountable, and I will strive for that in every case.

Cool Hand Luke 18:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Wizardman

What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?
I've been an admin for nearly two years, and have been a medcom member for about 9 months.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
I haven't been a party in any, though i've provided workshops discussion for some, such as E+C 2 and the big one. The big one (the c68 case) I drafted a proposed decision for arbcom to look at when i noticed the speed at waht the case was going.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
Arbcom needs sensible reform, and I can provide it.
How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?
Arbcom's been hit and miss. Some good cases, but some which were definitely handled poorly, such as the Highways case and the big case due to how slow everything transpired.
What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?
I favor transparency. Of course, there are instances where things need to be confidential. A good deal of the time, if someone submit s evidence through arbcom I'd presume the other party would at least have an idea of what it is. There are times where one may have to make a decision based on confidential information, though it wouldn't be ideal for me.
Why do you think users should vote for you?
Because I have a track record of doing what is right for the encyclopedia. I say arbcom needs sensible reform because anyone can say arbcom needs reform, but I know I can provide it based on my edits and career so far. If a user's acting up I'm not gonna turn the other cheek, and if they come to arbcom I'm going to deal with it. Wizardman 02:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Vassyana

What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?
Administrator, member of MedCom. Until I recently stepped down, I was a MedCab coordinator.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
The Prem Rawat case. I provided evidence and workshop suggestions.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
A number of editors encouraged me to run in this year's election. I also have strong misgivings about (what I perceive as) Arbcom's trend towards a top-down approach and distance from the core principles of Wikipedia. I also believe that my mediation experience and awareness of some divisive areas will be valuable additions to the Committee.
How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?
Overall, ArbCom has a mixed record in handling cases. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tango and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories are good examples of cases handled fairly well in a timely manner. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV is a prime example of untimely and unsatisfactory resolution, as well as poor communication and case handling. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2 is another case with similar issues. I believe instituting additional bureaucracy for the purposes of "special" BLP enforcement was a gross misjudgement by the Committee. It is something that could, and should, have been handled by acknowledging that we have much stronger standards for BLPs than other articles and clearly stating that administrators have the authority to enforce its provisions.
What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?
Confidentiality is an important consideration. I have long made myself available via email for confidential communications and held those letters in the strictest confidence. I would fully share evidence with the permission of the provider. If evidence is submitted about a party, I would at the very least make clear to that person the essential facts of the evidence. It is also important that privacy and confidentiality are properly considered. The submission of evidence privately to avoid the perceived threat of retribution is not the same as the submission of evidence involving confidential information. I would be willing to provide a decision influenced by confidential information, but would endeavor to explain as much about the evidence and its essential conclusions as possible without violating the confidence of the private correspondance. To draw a parallel to a common example, it is possible for a CheckUser to confirm connections between accounts (same IP and user agent) without divulging the private information (the specific IP and user agent).
Why do you think users should vote for you?
Everyone is going to have differing issue priorities and preferred qualities, so I cannot make a blanket statement. I believe I am reasonable and principled. In general, if editors agree with my candidate statement and think I have provided solid answers to the questions posed to me, then they should vote for me. Vassyana (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deadline query re ArbCom election Signpost questions

Hi Ral, I will answer the questions tomorrow evening (Monday) UTC time. If by "Tuesday" you mean a different timezone, or if you need the answers sooner could you let me know? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, Ral. Sorry for slipping a day and running right up to the deadline, but something else came up and I've had to leave it until this evening (Tuesday). I'll put my replies on your talk page tonight at about 9pm nd add a note in this section as well. Hopefully, given your publication schedule (I checked here) that won't be too much of a problem. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 09:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answers below. Carcharoth (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth's answers

What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?
I'm an administrator here on the English-language Wikipedia, with my RfA taking place in October 2007. I don't hold any other positions on this or other wikis.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
I've been a party in two cases. In both of these cases I was not one of the main parties, but was named due to my involvement in previous stages of the dispute. The cases were the Matthew Hoffman case (December 2007) and the Betacommand 2 case (March 2008). For more details of my activity on the arbitration pages over the past two years, please see my arbitration portfolio page.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
I stood in this election because I think an analytical and thoughtful approach to dispute resolution can help resolve some of the intractable disputes brought before the committee, and that this can improve the editing environment in those areas of disputes, and, ultimately, allow better articles to be written as a result.
How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?
Overall, it's been an up-and-down sort of year. I think the Franco-Mongol alliance case was a particularly tricky one involving content issues that the Arbitration Committee handled well, getting the balance right between needing to remedy the behaviour shown in the evidence, and reinforcing the need for verifiable sources, but leaving the resolution of the content issues to the community, the article editors, and the mentors of the party to that case. As for a poorly handled case, I think the OrangeMarlin case (and the subsequent hue and cry) was badly handled due to miscommunication and misunderstandings within the Arbitration Committee.
What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?
My opinion is that confidentiality is vital when needed, but it should not be encouraged if openness is a better option. Private submission of evidence should be examined to see if it needs to be private, and a dialogue opened with those submitting such evidence. Often, other parties to a case will need to see the evidence in order to be able to defend themselves, and those submitting private evidence need to be told that when they submit the evidence and asked if they consent to this. If they refuse permission, then the evidence may have to be discounted. In cases based on confidential evidence, the confidential material should remain so (with the exception of the arbitrators and, in some circumstances the parties to the case, as stated above) unless permission is explicitly sought and given to make it public. Any other approach will lead to people feeling unable to approach the Arbitration Committee in confidence. The decision in such cases should, as far as is humanly possible, be made public, along with the reasoning behind the decision. Anything less transparent will result in the community losing faith in the process.
Why do you think users should vote for you?
I would be fair-minded and objective at all times, examining the evidence with great care to determine what the correct findings should be, and taking the time to explain my reasonings and decisions. Anything less would be a dis-service to the community and the encyclopedia we are building.

Carcharoth (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lifebaka's answers

What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?
Here, I'm an admin. I've got some accounts on other Wikimedia wikis, but none of them have many edits or any user rights.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
Nope.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
I like the idea of giving the community a slightly more diverse choice. Unlike the other candidates, most of my on-wiki time is spent around deletion review and the criteria for speedy deletion. This gives me a different perspective than them, and a different skill set. I'd been toying with the idea of running for a few months, and no one who looks like me was in yet, so here I am.
How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?
Besides occasionally being entirely ineffectual (such as in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters, which had to come back to arbitration for a harder solution), it appears to be doing a fairly good job. For one I think was handled well, the resolution of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war, toothless as it is, is an elegant and clean solution (and it would have caused huge drahmahz pretty much any other way).
What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?
Depends on the evidence. If there's a damn fine reason for keeping it private, then I would. If there isn't a good reason to, I'd make it public. I plan to make decisions based on all evidence I have access to, whether public or private, in order to get the most full picture of the situation as possible.

In general, by which I mean this is my opinion about the whole of ArbCom and most of the 'pedia, unless there's a good reason (such as privacy concerns) to keep something confidential, it's best to keep in out in the open.
Why do you think users should vote for you?
I'm going to be a very different Arb than a lot of the other candidates. I don't have their backgrounds on-wiki; I've got a different perspective and skill set. However, this is pretty much my biggest selling point. So, dear readers, if you don't like it, don't vote for me. lifebaka++ 23:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

Joy

Marlith (Talk) has given you a kitten! Gifts of kittens promote Wikilove and holiday spirt. Hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and raise the holiday spirit! Send kittens to others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Marlith (Talk) 04:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dispatch

The Dispatch didn't go through the Workshop and I just found out about it; do I have time to review it and clean it up? It doesn't look finished, and I didn't even know about it. So much for setting up a Workshop and working hard to get others to coordinate efforts there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I spent some time looking at it and it's really unfinished; there's really not much I can do with it at 2 am when I just found out about it, so I hope you won't run it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ral; I kind of wonder what I'm doing wrong when I set up a Workshop and work my buns off over there, and no one will even use the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

Hi Ral315. I edited the Wikipedia Signpost/2008-12-01/Arbitration report because I didn't understand what a civility parole was. This got me thinking about writing for the Signpost. I looked at Signpost/Newsroom, but wasn't sure how to help out. If you have a suggestion for a topic, I would be happy to take a stab at writing an article on it either for the December 8th issue or the issue to follow that one. -- Suntag ☼ 08:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since the signpost was last delivered. How come? --Dylan 620 _Contribs ^Sign! 13:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLPs

G'day Ral, one idea I had for getting folks to start referencing BLPs maybe was to post a link to this page along with a short rationale on why sourcing BLPs are good (both legal and personal reasons!). Apparently there are rather alot.... What do you think? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 00:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper thingy

Could you send over the wikipedia thing that looks like a newspaper? If you decide to, then send it the same way you did to Shrewpelt. Thank you for checking!-Warriorscourge (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fundraising banner message has a spelling mistake

Hi Ral315. I left the following message on the Help Desk but Teratornis suggested you may have a better idea how to fix this. So I paste it here:

One of the rotating messages of the fundraising banner has a spelling error. " Merci et bravo pour votre impartialité ! — Benoit from Luxembuorg, donated 30 EUR" Luxembourg is spelled wrongly. Please pass this on to the right department. Thanks. Dr.K. (logos) 07:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Dr.K. (logos) 09:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Next Dispatch

Ral, I'm unsure what to do with Wikipedia:FCDW/TempFPreview; it's still not at the standard I'd like for a Dispatch, but I haven't located anyone who is willing or able to finish it up to the usual Dispatch standards. If you feel it's good enough, I guess it could run. We've also got Wikipedia:FCDW/WBFLN just about ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help please

How do you upload pictures, if they are from google do you need a copyright signed paper or whatever --Hippieslayer (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Hippieslayer[reply]

Happy New Year!

Dear Ral315,

Wishing you a happy a new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 20:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One big signpost

Have you considered doing the signpost like the Germans? It doesn't have issues, it just has one page. Anyone who wants to add an article can. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might be useful for signpost

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Edward_Owens included mention of the Edward Owens hoax in the Chronicle for Higher Education, and while I didn't track down that link myself, I'm sure you'll agree that if true such mention fits in with "in the news" sorts of blurbs. You know best, but only have so many eyes. Best wishes in 2009 and love your work! BusterD (talk) 13:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google cached the link. Actual Chronicle page is blank. We've seen these before. BusterD (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom straw poll: new proposed CheckUser and Oversight appointment process

ArbCom have just put together a proposal reforming CheckUser and Oversight appointments. The text in full is here, where a straw poll is running. Thought you'd like to know :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apoligy

Ral315, this is Punk Boi 8. I was banned in early 2007 for disrupting your newspaper and trying to have pages included that are not newspaper standard. I apoligise for the disruption I caused to the Signpost. Thanks -- Punk Boi 8 (talk) 08:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RALBOT task request

Currently RALBOT delivers the signpost to subscribed users.

I put the mini-signpost on my talk page by transclusion, but it doesn't update until my talk page is edited or purged.

Could you add a task to RALBOT to purge pages of users who transclude {{Signpost-subscription}} or, if that's not a good idea, purge pages of users who sign up for purging? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

Feel free to say "no!" to the following request, but it would be great to get a bit of coverage in the signpost for the following pet project of mine:

All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page.
Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project.
No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work.

Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

Every little bit of publicity helps! :) - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your work on the Signpost over the years. It has been a wonderful resource for me and many others, and I greatly appreciate the huge body of quality effort you put into it. Here, have a barnstar:

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For over three years of amazing service as editor-in-chief of the Wikipedia Signpost. kotra (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. A barnstar, though well deserved, hardly seems like enough -- what a tremendous effort you've put in. The Signpost is so important to keeping a sometimes disjointed editing community up to date on what's going on. Your dedication to keeping it going is impressive, and you've put out a lot of good articles. Well done! -Pete (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must echo others in thanking you for your tireless efforts in publishing The Signpost for so long, and maintaining consistently high standards while doing so. You've left big shoes for others to fill. The community is in your debt. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 20:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Great work. Avruch^T 21:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with pretty much everything said above. Thanks a bunch for your work.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		An Absolute Multitude of Barnstars
		One barnstar is not enough. I'm giving you one for every week that you ran the Signpost. Since posting around 169 barnstars here might just kill the servers, this makeshift one will hopefully adequately cover my gratitude as well as that of the entire Wikipedia community. Thank you ever so much. GARDEN 21:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		*The Signpost* Barnstar**
		I award this, the first Signpost Barnstar, to to Ral315 for his years of hard work.--ragesoss (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone here. I plan to return to Wikipedia at least part-time, sometime soon. I cannot adequately express my gratitude to ragesoss and the numerous writers who have helped me in the past. Ral315 (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick request

Hi there,

I haven't bee able to figure out how to do this so I was hoping you could help. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue/NextTemp currently emits a date in format MD, right now the Signpost is published with articles dated DM. As it works we must subst: the template, then modify the date to be DM. I was wondering if it would be possible for /NextTemp to be in DM already in order to take out the extra step. Thanks! §hep ^Talk 01:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess just on the snippets now here. It was working so that it subst'ed the page and the date came out, then oeer the last week it changed and now the template on the page transcludes instead of the date; so it's not as much of a need anymore if you can't get anything to work. Wayyy over my head though. :D §hep ^Talk 22:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another barnstar

		*The Signpost* Barnstar**
		I award this, the second Signpost Barnstar, to to Ral315 for his years of hard work on the Signpost.Enigma ^msg 04:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Anyone reading this should run Microsoft Update, if you're using Windows. Enigma^msg 04:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Policy guidance

Hi

A user whom you blocked indefinitely two years ago is back in uploading copy-vio images. I have raised the issue here. I need your input to proceed on this matter as one of the clerks want further diff to substantiate the case against him even though he actually admits to be a sock master. There are now 1,074 pages which he seems to want to "upgrade" to GA status. I believe there is a serious risk of legal exposure here.Anwar (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I asked input from you was to get extra diff to substantiate the case. Nothing more, nothing less. Getting him blocked will not help solve the copyvio upload problems still because he will return with a new set of puppets in no time. That's why I wanted to know if there is any specific Wikipedia policy guidance in such situations.Anwar (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Ral315/Archive 31's Day!

User:Ral315/Archive 31 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Ral315/Archive 31's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Ral315/Archive 31!

Peace,
Rlevse
~

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spotlight

Re. signpost / Spotlight

I've added some more info, as a suggestion, in Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#Requests_for_WikiProject_features.

I hope that this was the right place to write it; I'm leaving this note in the hope that someone will look at it a bit, and see if it could be included. I think that it's an important project, and it works well with many people - hence we need the publicity! Chzz ► 22:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Deletion log

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Deletion log. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. MBisanz ^talk 23:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theorem of repeating decimal

Please refer to Talk:Repeating_decimal#Theorem of repeating decimal. What is your opinion?--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 01:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sucks

Greg Kohs says you or the other list moderator on Foundation-I censored his critique of the Wikimedia Foundation business model. I hope it wasn't you because I thought you have better judgment than to do such a silly act. Chutznik (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes that sort of thing can backfire due to Streisand effect ... ++Lar: t/c 22:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Ral315! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 263 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Hugh Durham - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Queen WikiProject

Hello, I am leaving you this message as part of a personal effort to revive the Queen WikiProject of which you are listed as a participant. If you are not interested in committing yourself to contributing to Queen related articles please go about removing yourself from the participants list on the project page. On the other hand if you are interested in the project and do wish to contribute, I encourage you to head over to the project's talk page to work towards outstanding tasks and share ideas on how Queen-related articles may be improved.

Thanks for reading this, and I look forward to your response. Such a legendary group deserves to be honoured with quality articles on Wikipedia and it is a great shame such a project has gone inactive.

TheStig 20:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Date linking

Hi, thanks for your edits to The Signpost. Please note that chronological items are not linked unless there is a very good reason to do so. WP:MOSDATE. Tony (talk) 06:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was a mistaken entry. Sorry to bother you. Tony (talk) 06:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Request an account/Administrators

Wikipedia:Request an account/Administrators, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Request an account/Administrators and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Request an account/Administrators during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- DQ (t) (e) 23:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jeopardy! Million Dollar Masters for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Jeopardy! Million Dollar Masters, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Million Dollar Masters until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jeopardy! Ultimate Tournament of Champions for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Jeopardy! Ultimate Tournament of Champions, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Ultimate Tournament of Champions until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attack page definition inclusion of the words "image" and "image caption"

As it appears that you were the first editor(back in 2006) to introduce the notion and wording that an image can be an attack page too, you may be interested to join a debate on the attack page discussion page proposing the removal of the word and debating the merits of expanding the definition to include image+caption combinations. Please inform anyone else you think may be interested to contribute whatever views they hold on it --— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 05:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Contribs

Template:Contribs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 08:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interview with Signpost's former editors in chief

The WikiProject Report would like to interview the former editors in chief of the Signpost for an article in the Signpost. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new contributors to the newspaper. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 04:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of change

Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Template:Member states of the European Union

Hi, back in 2008 you protected this template. I do not really see a need for protecting this template, the reason given was "very high-risk template" which I doubt – it is only used on 50 pages or so, and there has not been much vandalism, if any. Even if it needed protection, autoconfirmed protection would have been sufficient. Since I am not sure you are still active here, I am also requesting its unprotection on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Thanks, SPQRobin (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know -- Missing Wikipedians

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:MathCOTM

Template:MathCOTM has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Magioladitis (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC that you may be interested in...

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Current-Math-COTM

Template:Current-Math-COTM has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Magioladitis (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/SPV

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/SPV, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/SPV and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/SPV during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Deletion log archive

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Deletion log archive. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 189.25.205.82 (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy! Ultimate Tournament of Champions/Upcoming matches listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jeopardy! Ultimate Tournament of Champions/Upcoming matches. Since you had some involvement with the Jeopardy! Ultimate Tournament of Champions/Upcoming matches redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of programs broadcast by Adult Swim for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of programs broadcast by Adult Swim is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Adult Swim until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:S-t

Template:S-t has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huricane listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Huricane. Since you had some involvement with the Huricane redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jeopardy! Ultimate Tournament of Champions for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jeopardy! Ultimate Tournament of Champions is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Ultimate Tournament of Champions (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. AldezD (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]