Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Snowspinner: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
El Sandifer (talk | contribs) |
El Sandifer (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 189:
''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?''
Since you are asking explicitly about Kelly, I will say only that reading the RfC as a request for censure is an appalling way to read it, and that Wikipedia is not and never has been run by numbers alone. [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 08:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
''[[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?''
--[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] 01:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Nothing actively comes to mind on this topic - if it is truly of interest to you, I advise looking through my history yourself. [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 08:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
==Recusal, Code of Conduct, Expansion==
| |||