Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Luigi30: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Tony Sidaway (talk | contribs) attack templates |
|||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
Line 76:
==Question by Ted Wilkes about his Conduct Code proposal==
Do you support the creation of a [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct]] as I have just now suggested at [[User talk:Jimbo Wales#A sincere question]]? - [[User:Ted Wilkes|Ted Wilkes]] 18:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
:I'm neutral on it. I think it's got some of good ideas, good precedents, but there are a few things I disagree with, and I see no point in adding specific rules on recusals. [[User:Luigi30|Luigi30]] ([[User_talk:Luigi30|Ταλκ]]) 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
== Support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights? ==
Do you support [[Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights]]? ([[User:SEWilco|SEWilco]] 05:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC))
:Sure. Why not? [[User:Luigi30|Luigi30]] ([[User_talk:Luigi30|Ταλκ]]) 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
==Questions to many candidates by [[User:PurplePlatypus|PurplePlatypus]]==
#How do you view the role (and relative importance) of [[WP:Civility]] in the process of building a factually accurate encyclopedia? How do you view editors who are normally correct in article namespace, but who may be perceived as rude – including to longtime, popular editors and admins – on Talk pages and the like?
:If someone's rude, I'll try to keep my civility, unless they are being compete idiots and refusing any sort of logic whatsoever. It's that simple. If someone's good in articlespace but bad in contact with others, that's their problem. They need to learn that they need to treat people with respect to get any back as an editor. [[User:Luigi30|Luigi30]] ([[User_talk:Luigi30|Ταλκ]]) 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
#Do you have an academic background of any kind, and if so, in what field? How do you handle critiques from your peers and professors (assuming those aren’t one and the same), which may be sharply worded or otherwise skirt the edges of [[WP:Civility]] even if they are correct? Considering those professors who have recently had you as a student, what would ''they'' tell me if I asked them the same question about you?
:Seeing as I'm not in a university, this question does not apply. [[User:Luigi30|Luigi30]] ([[User_talk:Luigi30|Ταλκ]]) 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
#What are your views on the proposed policy [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct]]? Whether you think it should be a formal policy or not, do you believe you would generally act in accordance with it? What aspects of it do you think should not be there, or to put it another way, are there any proposals there which you can think of good reasons to ignore on a regular basis? (Please date any replies to this question as the proposal may well change over time.)
:See my answer to this question above. I don't think it should be official, just suggested. [[User:Luigi30|Luigi30]] ([[User_talk:Luigi30|Ταλκ]]) 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
[[User:PurplePlatypus|PurplePlatypus]] 07:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
== Questions being asked by [[User:Titoxd|Titoxd]] to all candidates ==
# How much of your Wikipedia time do you plan to spend on ArbCom business?
:As much as is needed. [[User:Luigi30|Luigi30]] ([[User_talk:Luigi30|Ταλκ]]) 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
# If you were elected and had to spend most of your time in ArbCom delibations, which projects would you consider to be the most negatively affected by your absence?
:RC patrol probably. If I'm in deliberations a lot, I won't have a chance to revert. [[User:Luigi30|Luigi30]] ([[User_talk:Luigi30|Ταλκ]]) 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
# To what extent would those projects be affected?
:I'd have less time to spend on doing RC patrol. [[User:Luigi30|Luigi30]] ([[User_talk:Luigi30|Ταλκ]]) 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
[[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[User:Titoxd/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]])</sup> 06:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
==Neutrality question and Censuring questions from -Ril-==
''(Being asked of all candidates)''
''Do you believe that regardless of Jimbo Wales' own views on the matter, the community should be able to strip arbitrators of their position under certain circumstances, and if so, what circumstances?''
:I disagree with that. Under no circumstances should an arbitrator be removed from office by the community. There is no reason to do that, they have no more power than normal users, they just have more responsibility to make decisions. Whether or not they are agreed with is a seperate issue. [[User:Luigi30|Luigi30]] ([[User_talk:Luigi30|Ταλκ]]) 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
''As a corollory:Do you believe, regardless of Jimbo Wales' view on the matter, that a large number of signatories (e.g. 150 requesting censure against 50 supporting the arbitrator) to an RFC against an arbitrator is enough that the arbitrator should be judged as having been rejected by the community in light of their actions, and consequently for them to be forcibly stripped of their post?''
''[[WP:NPOV|wikipedia has a policy of NPOV]]. Excepting straw men, have you ever introduced a '''substantial''' opinion or fact that '''contradicts''' your own political or religious viewpoint into an article on a topic of which you have strong opinions, and if you have, how frequently do you do so compared to your other substatial edits to articles?''
:I have never introduced a strong opinion into an article. [[User:Luigi30|Luigi30]] ([[User_talk:Luigi30|Ταλκ]]) 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
--[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] | [[User:-Ril-/Biblecruft|help remove biblecruft]] 02:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
==Recusal, Code of Conduct, Expansion==
I am asking these questions of all candidates:
1. Do you pledge to abide by the proposed recusal guidelines at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct#Recusal]]?
:See my answer to this question above. [[User:Luigi30|Luigi30]] ([[User_talk:Luigi30|Ταλκ]]) 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Are there any parts of [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct]] that you do not agree with? If so, please describe in detail how you would improve them.
:See my answer above. The recusal guidelines seem to be adding rules to something that is solely the arbitrator's decision. They should not exist at all. [[User:Luigi30|Luigi30]] ([[User_talk:Luigi30|Ταλκ]]) 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Will you please pledge to support expanding the number of seats on the Arbitration Committee? If not, how would you propose alleviating the present arbitration backlog?
:I think adding another Arbcom with an equal number of seats would help the backlog. [[User:Luigi30|Luigi30]] ([[User_talk:Luigi30|Ταλκ]]) 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Have you voted over at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Proposed modifications to rules]]? If not, why not? If so, please summarize your votes.
:I voted '''against''' making only admins eligible, '''for''' midyear elections, '''weak support''' on expanding to 24 seats, '''against''' a choice of term length, '''for''' removing sockpuppet votes, and did not vote on the other issues. [[User:Luigi30|Luigi30]] ([[User_talk:Luigi30|Ταλκ]]) 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. —[[User:Nrcprm2026|<i>James S.</i>]] 06:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
== Form questions from [[User:Simetrical|Simetrical]] ==
#What's your opinion on desysopping as an ArbCom penalty?
#How closely do you think admins should have to follow policy when using their special powers?
—[[User:Simetrical|Simetrical]] ([[User talk:Simetrical|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Simetrical|contribs]]) 02:22, 10 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]] 20:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
| |||