Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/DG: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 09:54, 9 January 2006

Latest revision as of 23:15, 4 February 2023

(7 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)

Line 17:

# '''Would you be terrific, in your post?''' [[User:DG|D.]] [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 02:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

#: Absolutely. There is no doubt about it, to be certain. [[User:DG|D.]] [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 02:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

# '''Blah blah blither blather ArbCom?''' [[User:Andrevan|<b><fontspan colorstyle="color:mediumblue;">Andre</fontspan></b>]] ([[User_talk:Andrevan|<fontspan colorstyle="color:royalblue;">talk</fontspan>]]) 02:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

#: I beg to differ on that issue, Andre. Respectfully. [[User:DG|D.]] [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 02:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

# '''What is your stance on the affirmative action taxation of gay marriage in the crack-addicted aborted baby military occupying Eurasian prostitution embezzlement organized crime church tort schools, and how will this affect your ability to arbitrate as effectively and ineffectively as you can and cannot?''' -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 06:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Line 136:

: The answer to all these questions of your, James, is yes, I'm in favour of all that, and it's good, and so on. This is all hardly objectionable. Who isn't in favour of recusal in case of conflict of interest and so on? Pitch me some tougher questions next round. [[User:DG|D.]] &#91;&#91;User_talk:DG&#124;G.]] 09:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

==[[Anarchism]] page==

How would you resolve the [[situationist|situation]] on the [[anarchism]] page?[[User:Harrypotter|Harrypotter]] 18:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

:Protect them all and let Jimbo sort them out. [[User:DG|D.]] &#91;&#91;User_talk:DG&#124;G.]] 21:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

==advertising ==

"advertising nonsense being pulled over the community's eyes" <-- can you expand on this? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 02:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

:Actually I have no views on the advertising thing. That was just political opportunism designed to trick those who foolishly did into voting for me. In reality I feel the issue is close to moot. What's wrong with an ad here or there? [[User:DG|D.]] &#91;&#91;User_talk:DG&#124;G.]] 21:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

==Concerns over personal attack templates==

[[User:Improv]], who is also a candidate for the arbitration committee, has placed the following statement on [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)]]:

: ''I am concerned about [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion&curid=895730&diff=34790720&oldid=34790144#Template:User_against_scientology|recent templates] surviving AfD that appear to contrast with [[WP:NPA|established policy]]. In particular, I feel that these templates are [[Poisoning the well]] when it comes for how we treat our fellow wikipedians. There are circumstances where knowing too much about one's neighbours politicises how one deals with them. This is, to an extent, unavoidable in society, but wearing signs of hate as badges on our shoulders takes what is a small problem that we can usually deal with into the realm of being damaging to the community. Already, there have been signs of people refusing to help each other because they are on different ends of a political spectrum -- this seems likely to get worse if this trend continues. Some people cry that this is an attack on their first amendment rights (if they're American, anyhow), but that doesn't apply here because Wikipedia is not the U.S. government -- it is a community that has always self-regulated, and more importantly it is an encyclopedia with a goal of producing encyclopedic content. We have a tradition of respecting a certain amount of autonomy on userpages, but never absolute autonomy. We might imagine, for example, templates with little swastikas saying "this user hates jews". I am not saying that such a thing would be morally equivalent to this template against scientology, but rather that we should aim to minimise that aspect of ourselves, at least on Wikipedia, so we can make a better encyclopedia. The spirit of [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]] does not mean that we cannot have strong views and still be wikipedians, but rather that we should not wear signs of our views like badges, strive not to have our views be immediately obvious in what we edit and how we argue, and fully express ourselves in other places (Myspace? Personal webpage?) where it is more appropriate and less divisive.'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28policy%29&diff=34797833&oldid=34788153]

I am inviting all candidates, including Improv, to expand on this theme on their questions pages. Do you agree that this is a cause for concern as we move into 2006? How do you see the role of the arbitration committee in interpreting the interpretation of Wikipedia policy in the light of this concern? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 20:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

::No, I wasn't aware that this was one of Wikipedia's most major problems, and I don't believe it is too much of a cause for concern. Why do you care? [[User:DG|D.]] &#91;&#91;User_talk:DG&#124;G.]] 01:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)