Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Dmcdevit: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Nrcprm2026 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
→Neutrality question and Censuring questions from -Ril-: initial thoughts |
||
Line 82:
''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 don't know Jimbo's view, though I suspect (based on your "regardless") that it puts Jimbo as the sole arbiter (haha) of that decision. Though I do, of course, trust him to take the community's views into consideration, hypothetically it is sound to suggest that a strong consensus within the community (read near-unanimity) could affect the same result. I fail to believe that we would ever be faced with such a situation, however.
''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?''
:I'm not sure I can answer this. Your 150:50 figure (which seems an obvious reference to Kelly Martin) is not sufficient in that RFCs are made up of varying and overlapping statements, and are not really meat to be a dichotomy. Also, it is very possible, in my mind, for an arbitrator to be judged a poor administrator or editor in some regard which has no bearing on their arbitratorship. Of course, determing the community consensus ''would'' likely need to involve a poll of some sort ('after'' discussion), but as to the RFC format or the abuses involved, I can't do better than these generalities without a specific situation to assess.
''[[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'll need to think about this a bit more, will get to it back in a while (though I'll note right now that I don't often edit political or religious articles). [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 06:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
--[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] 01:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
|