Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Kylehamilton: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Kylehamilton (talk | contribs) added awnsers to another question |
No edit summary |
||
Line 31:
====Awnsers to "Another question'====
:The Bill or rights and Arbitration Comitee code of conduct both look like good ideas, I think that there just common sence. --[[User:Kylehamilton|Kylehamilton]] 13:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
==Neutrality question and Censuring questions from -Ril-==
''(Being asked of all candidates)''
''Do you believe that regardless of Jimbo Wales' own views on the matter, the community should be able to strip arbitrators of their position under certain circumstances, and if so, what circumstances?''
''As a corollory:Do you believe, regardless of Jimbo Wales' view on the matter, that a large number of signatories (e.g. 150 requesting censure against 50 supporting the arbitrator) to an RFC against an arbitrator is enough that the arbitrator should be judged as having been rejected by the community in light of their actions, and consequently for them to be forcibly stripped of their post?''
''[[WP:NPOV|wikipedia has a policy of NPOV]]. Excepting straw men, have you ever introduced a '''substantial''' opinion or fact that '''contradicts''' your own political or religious viewpoint into an article on a topic of which you have strong opinions, and if you have, how frequently do you do so compared to your other substatial edits to articles?''
--[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] | [[User:-Ril-/Biblecruft|help remove biblecruft]] 02:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
| |||