Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Kylehamilton: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Nrcprm2026 (talk | contribs) |
Kylehamilton (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 57:
Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. —[[User:Nrcprm2026|<i>James S.</i>]] 06:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
===Awnsers to "Recusal, Code of Conduct, Expansion"===
1. Do you pledge to abide by the proposed recusal guidelines at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct#Recusal]]?
: '''Yes the Code of Conduct is full of common sence, and the part about "Recusal" makes sence to me I would Recusal myself from any Arbitration that fell under thoses rules, funny side story a friend of mine from High School called me when her mom saw that I was running for Arbitration Committee small world isnt it?'''
2. Are there any parts of [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct]] that you do not agree with? If so, please describe in detail how you would improve them.
: '''As stated in your first question all of the rules are pure simple common sence.'''
3. Will you please pledge to support expanding the number of seats on the Arbitration Committee? If not, how would you propose alleviating the present arbitration backlog?
: '''I stated in the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Proposed modifications to rules]] that I think we should add up to 48 new people to the arbitrtion committee to help speed up arbitration, I also think we should have a circuit system.'''
4. Have you voted over at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Proposed modifications to rules]]? If not, why not? If so, please summarize your votes.
: Here are my votes in the the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Proposed modifications to rules]]
#Proposal 1: Must be an admin to run for ArbCom :''' Very Stron Oppose Adminship and Arbitration are differnt and should stay so ones abilty to resolve conflict should not be based on edits. --Kylehamilton 00:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)'''
#Proposal 2: Block voting : '''Nutral'''
#Proposal 3: Midyear elections : '''Support haveing a large grouping of people for article arbitration is helpful --Kylehamilton 00:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)'''
#Proposal 4: Expansion to 24 seats : '''Strong Support We should look into adding ever more seats, the most commen complaints im hearing about Arbitration is that it takes months to have your case heard we should look into adding a addisional 20 people on top of the proposed 24'''
#Proposal 5: Run-off election : '''Nutral'''
#Proposal 6: Alternates to fill vacancies'''This one kind of depends on what happens with Proposal 4. If we have a pool of 24 arbiters (as suggested in P4) then having the committee reduced by three or four (or even six or seven) over the course of the year isn't going to be a disaster. This is an excellent idea if the committee isn't enlarged. SIDENOTE: Pureblade and I agreed with TenOfAllTrades he wrote this not myself I just agreed to it'''
#Proposal 7: Expansion to 30 seats '''Weak Support This is a simple concept that would only help speed up the Arbitration process, I like the idea of letting memebers of the arbitration committee sit on more then one case we should also look to adding up to 48 new members to the committee--Kylehamilton 00:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)'''
#Proposal 8: Condorcet voting '''Nutral'''
#Proposal 9: Three year terms for all '''Nutral'''
#Proposal 10: Nulify all sockpuppet and puppetmaster votes ''' Support this is simpley common sense, good luck trying to enforce this.--Kylehamilton 00:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)'''
#Proposal 11: Two year terms for all '''Nutral'''
#Proposal 12: Stay with 12 seats, with optional panels of 3 '''Strong Oppose there should be around 48 members of the committee and only 3/5/7/9 should view cases, if it has to go to the full committee for some reson it better be good --Kylehamilton 01:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)'''
#Proposal 13: Votes to accept include panel size 5/7/9 '''# Support I would like to see it as a 3/5/7/9 but this works --Kylehamilton 00:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)'''
| |||