Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Ronline: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 67:
''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?''
:Yes. I think even 150 may be too much to ask (maybe 100:50 instead of 150:50). Basically, I think if it comes to an RfC against an arbitrator, and there are people who bring credible facts and proof that that arbitrator has acted inappropriately,
''[[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?''
:Well, not to a great extent, but one example that qualifies is [[Moldovan language]]. My political viewpoint on that issue is that a Moldovan language does not exist ''per se'', however, I have added information to that article that did contradict my point of view, since it was sourced, and also information that supported my point of view. Overall, I try to source all of my edits, and I try to maintain as neutral a view as possible. To be honest, however, I haven't actively tried to add information to articles that contradicts my viewpoints. [[Image:European flag.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] '''[[User:Ronline|Ronline]]''' [[User talk:Ronline|✉]] 00:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
--[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] | [[User:-Ril-/Biblecruft|help remove biblecruft]] 02:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
| |||