Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements/AGK/Extended: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:29, 19 November 2009

Revision as of 19:53, 19 November 2009

Line 9:

* '''Second chances.''' I extend to all the [[Wikipedia:Standard offer|standard offer]], and would abide by the principles of that system if elected. Those who genuinely wish to return to constructive editing are to be helped every step of the way, inasmuch as doing so would not be detrimental to the other functions of an arbitrator. If elected, I would volunteer to deal with banned editors, to allow the rest of the project to get on with writing the encyclopedia; and I would give my time to those who make a good case for returning to a subject area from which they have been banned (or indeed, to the entire project, in the case of sitebans).

* '''Recall.''' I would not continue to serve if I no longer had the community's trust. If elected, I would establish a method for forcibly removing me from the committee in the event that the community no longer wished for me to serve. I would also resign if a majority of my colleagues on the committee asked me to. I am here to serve the project. I could not do so if my presence is detrimental.

* '''Administrator conduct.''' Sysops who cannot be trusted to do a good job should be removed. If the community brings a problematic administrator to the committee whilst I am sittingan on itarbitrator, I will vote to launch proceedings to scrutinise thethat administrator's administrator—andconduct—and will support only measures which fully neutralise theany problems with that administratorconduct.

* '''Biographies of living persons.''' They're a big problem. A huge one, actually. I don't intend the project to get a huge lawsuit whilst I'm on the committee. If elected, I would be very aware of the importance of making special provisions for ensuring that BLPs honour our core policies.

* '''Leniency.''' Inasmuch as doing so would not violate my second point (to effectively and ''fully'' neutralise all problematic conduct), I would err on the side of leniency. Being heavy-handed for the sake of being heavy-handed serves nobody.