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

Revision as of 21:10, 16 December 2005

Revision as of 21:53, 16 December 2005

Line 32:

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

''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 suppose some people would say I have strong political views, (though it's more of a general cynicism), though I never edit those kind of articles. I see arbitration as dealing with problem ''users'' not content. People can be problem users regardless of their views, and that's what needs to be adresed. I'm sure I can deal with an edit warrior or an uncivil editor, or whatever the problem is, who is very pro- or anti-Bush or pro- or anti-Islam without recusing myself for only that reason. [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 21:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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

:I believe that part of coming to a decision is approaching discussions (especially with people I respect) with an open mind and a willingness to incorporate the good ideas of others. Having said that, my opinions are my own, whatever ideas of others I incorporate into my own, are because I myself legitimately agree with them. The flip side of this is that I am more than willing to express any dissent to others, and I expect them to consider my points. Whether I do disagree or not, it will never be because I am simply "going with the flow". [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 21:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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

:I don't see that "automatic decisions" have any place in ArbCom. There are plenty of premature such requests, but there ''are'' reasons to re-address cases, either because the behavior is unchanged (eg Zen-master's probation extension, Rex071404's last case), because the user is changed, and restrictions are not in WP's best interest (removal of Everyking's revert parole, probably others I can't think of now), or some other reason. [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 21:53, 16 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?''

:Absolutely. If something neds doing because it will make Wikipedia better, it should be done. An arbitration case is not litigation. Often the best way to resolve a conflict is to address all parties involved. [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 21:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

--[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] 16:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)