Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Mailer diablo: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m FTP =P |
No edit summary |
||
Line 11:
The reason why there was only one question on Q&A, is because I joined the elections around the last few days. I apologise for my lateness in my candidacy. I'm not sure if questions may still be posted, but if it is I welcome any new questions to be posted to clarify your doubts.
After looking at the current votes, I suppose many would like me to elaborate on my statement and direction, so here it is. Personally, I believe that punishment should be handed out on the basis that it would hopefully reform users, and second chance of change. Don't be surprised to see me in favour for shorter bans in place of alternative action (such as mentorship, probation, article bans, etc). If you simply hardban a user outright, he/she's probably only going to jump his/her ban and continually reset the date. A good example would be [[User:Mike Garcia|Mike Garcia]], reformed member currently on mentorship.
I believe an arbitrator should have three important aspects that they must uphold, which are part of my principles - Integrity, civility and sense of shame :
| |||