Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Luigi30: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
|||
Line 30:
Being an arbitrator requires a finely tuned bullshit detector. What in your life has prepared you to detect bullshit with ease? [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 21:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
The internet's many scams and frauds? [[User:Luigi30|Luigi30]] ([[User_talk:Luigi30|Ταλκ]]) 21:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
==Form Question from [[User:Karmafist|karmafist]]==
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]] 18:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Whichever policy has stood up more in past cases would take precedence over a weaker policy. I wouldn't completely discount it, however. [[User:Luigi30|Luigi30]] ([[User_talk:Luigi30|Ταλκ]]) 21:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
==Questions from [[User:-Ril-]]==
Line 38 ⟶ 42:
''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?''
I can't think of any strong opinions that I have, other than sunny side up. [[User:Luigi30|Luigi30]] ([[User_talk:Luigi30|Ταλκ]]) 21:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
''How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"?''
I'll go against other administrators if I believe a decision to be wrong. I'd rather see a 6-1 than a 7-0 on a controversial decision. [[User:Luigi30|Luigi30]] ([[User_talk:Luigi30|Ταλκ]]) 21:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
''Do you view all requests to re-address cases, particularly requests made by those most penalised, as being automatically without merit?''
Only in some cases. If there were new evidence that completely contradicted a finding of fact, of course it's with merit. [[User:Luigi30|Luigi30]] ([[User_talk:Luigi30|Ταλκ]]) 21:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
''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?''
Line 47 ⟶ 57:
--Victim of signature fascism 16:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I support this. If one party was provoked by another party into doing something '''really''' stupid, than of course the second party is partially to blame. [[User:Luigi30|Luigi30]] ([[User_talk:Luigi30|Ταλκ]]) 21:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
==Question from Marsden==
| |||