Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/DG: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:32, 1 December 2005

Revision as of 16:43, 3 December 2005

Line 32:

#: I'm actually very glad you asked me this. More than anything else, having gone through the new jersey public schooling system has necessarily made me a brilliant expert at both processing and generating bullshit of any and every classification. In fact, if I could name only one thing I'm terrific at, it's processing and generating bullshit. In a more wikipedian context, I am sure that if you just take a cursory look at my edits you will find yourself rolling in bullshit. This should settle any doubts. [[User:DG|D.]] [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 00:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

#Many policies contradict and overlap with each other, and then [[WP:IAR]] makes things even more complicated while making them paradoxically more flexible. When two or more policies apply and conflict, what do you do? [[User:Karmafist|karmafist]] 18:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

==Questions from [[User:-Ril-]]==

:''The following questions are for each candidate, and do not specifically target you''

''Do you hold any strong political or religious opinions (e.g. concerning George Bush, Islam, or on which end you should break a boiled egg)? If so, would you recuse yourself from cases centred on these?''

''How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"?''

''Do you view all requests to re-address cases, particularly requests made by those most penalised, as being automatically without merit?''

''In the case against Yuber, it was decided by the arbitration committee that it is the duty of arbitrators to investigate, and rule on the behaviour of not only one party involved, but all of them. Do you support this decision? [if current arbitrator] Does your visible behaviour on recent cases reflect this decision?''

--Victim of signature fascism 16:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)