Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Comments/Secret

This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee.

Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
Use third-level headers for new sections.
- Example: === Heading title ===.
Unsure about the election process?
- Please review the election rules.
Issue with inappropriate commentary or questions?
- Please notify an election volunteer.

Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate: Secret

Candidate statement (create)
Questions for the candidate (create)
Discuss this candidate (create)

Secret

Discussion of Ravenswing's comment

See my answer towards Wehwalt question, the first large gap was entirely my fault, but the second one not really, and I was still editing around. Thanks Secret ^account 16:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of SilkTork's comment

The clafity of writing has always been my weakness in the project. I should have mentioned this from the beginning that I have a mild form of dyslexia called dysgraphia. I could read and understand perfectly fine, but I have problems writing. But trust me it improved since I first entered the project. As for candidate statement, I know it was a weak statement as I came to the race late, but look at my answers towards the questions, I placed alot of thought into it and I understand that this is a challenging task. Thanks Secret ^account 00:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. I also have dyslexia, so I understand and empathise with you. Mine, fortunately, takes a different form to yours - I have difficulty taking in information aurally, have difficulty with sequencing, get left and right confused, and have an appalling memory for names, dates and numbers. Only today I gave my date of birth as 17//11/59 and had to be corrected, as it is 17/11/56! Regards SilkTork *^YES! 15:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of Mpdelbuono's comment

I don't believe that a majority of the community is overwhelming is destructive and I didn't mention that. The only editors that are destructive are sockpuppets, vandals, and those kind of users. I do believe in assume good faith, I just opposed question 9 because I felt that a subject that's hard to find consensus and can be easily abused. But right now I'm glad that consensus is going though Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship. Thanks Secret ^account 04:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have moved the above discussions from the comment page. Please bear in mind the instructions at the top of the page. Thanks, Skomorokh 16:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit analysis

A detailed analysis of this candidate's edits in article, user and project space can be found at User:Franamax/Ucontribs-2009/Secret. Franamax (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]