Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:02, 22 November 2004

Revision as of 06:33, 22 November 2004

Line 69:

==[[User:Chuck F|Chuck F]]==

I realize that I have an extremely small chance of winning this, alas I feel I still must attempt to put forth two messages: First- to Suggest 100 percent full support Behindbehind VeryVerily,people hethat will bring a fresh face ofand fairchange to the arbcom commite in terms of temp injuctions, toand thehow a user gets committeeselected. Second - To bring light to the fact that the policy on Temp Injunctions must be changed, and we must elect arbitrators that will check evidence and full situations before issuing temp injuctions bans(Temp injuction bans which at the rate that arbcom moves end up being longer then arbcoms final decision bans)

I specifically urge you to vote against Raul654 Because of his recent actions where he he has become Condescending to many wikipedians, and his complete lack of checking of evidence. Please see [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Gzornenplatz%2C_Kevin_Baas%2C_Shorne%2C_VeryVerily#Corrupt_arbitrators_exposed:_James_F..2C_Martin.2C_the_Epopt.2C_Delirium.2C_Raul654.2C_mav]] for more details. When you have arbcoms members banning users from editing pages they have never edited in their wikipedia history, simply because the rest of the people under that same arbitration case edited thoese pages; You have a problem, one that obviously shows some arbcom members don't bother to check any evidence at all for temp injuctions