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

Revision as of 15:40, 5 January 2006

Revision as of 07:40, 8 January 2006

Line 85:

''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?''

:I'm not sure I can answer this. Your 150:50 figure (which seems an obvious reference to Kelly Martin) is not sufficient in that RFCs are made up of varying and overlapping statements, and are not really meat to be a dichotomy. Also, it is very possible, in my mind, for an arbitrator to be judged a poor administrator or editor in some regard which has no bearing on their arbitratorship. Of course, determing the community consensus ''would'' likely need to involve a poll of some sort (''after'' discussion), but as to the RFC format or the abuses involved, I can't do better than these generalities without a specific situation to assess.

::Although it clearly can refer to Kelly Martin, her case is somewhat moot in this regard, since her appointment is temporary and only lasts until these elections. However, the question was intended as a general one, the reference being made to demonstrate the non-hypothetical nature of the question. --[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] | [[User:-Ril-/Biblecruft|help remove biblecruft]] 15:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

:::I would add that the kind of person I, and presumably the rest of the community, would support (and this includes myself) I expect to not ever be faced with a situation where the community supports their removal, but if so, to modify behavior accordingly or step down. This should describe all of our arbitrators. [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 07:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

''[[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?''

:I'll need to think about this a bit more, will get to it back in a while (though I'll note right now that I don't often edit political or religious articles). [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 06:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

::This question concerns when you do edit such articles. Also note that articles about politicians, periods in history (e.g. wars of the roses, cromwell, american civil war, french revolution), art (e.g. ancient and modern), and other topics also frequently have more than one stance. The question is an important one as it helps us to guage whether you act and are likely to act neutrally or only to support your own biases. --[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] | [[User:-Ril-/Biblecruft|help remove biblecruft]] 15:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

:::Hm. Most of my recent arcicle space contributions have been either translations (e.g. [[Biblioteca Nacional de Colombia]]) or lists ([[list of national libraries]], [[list of UN peacekeeping missions]], etc.), as well as the typical cleanup. Of course, I did write a large chunk of [[Black Death]] way back when, which I suppose had some stuff I'd disagree with in the "alternate explanations" section. I'm sure I've wikified/cleaned up dome political articles of subjects I disagree with... But I'm finding it hard to find some edit to point at. On the flip side, I don't think I've ever seriously been accused of introducing POV into an article. [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 07:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

--[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] 01:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)