Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/DG: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 26:
#: I honestly don't think that if done right arbitration should really be an extremely time-consuming, extremely straining activity. It seems to me that if that's the case, something is being done wrong, something isn't being done effeciently, and something needs to be changed. I'm completely eager to change that, if it needs to be. And if not, then forget it. I think the answer to your question is "as long as it takes," whether it be four hours or ten hours or whatever it should eventually be, till the job gets done. If you rephrase the question in that way-- how much of the job am I willing to get done well? The answer is all of it, and then after that, that's it. [[User:DG|D.]] [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 02:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
#::If time proves you wrong on this, will you really be willing to spend a large time on this? I'm kinda interested since some of the other candidates states they'll use significant time on the commitee. [[User:Vidarlo|vidar]][[User_talk:Vidarlo|lo]] 18:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
#:::As I've said, if circumstances prove me wrong as to how much of a commitment is required, I am nevertheless entirely prepared to spend however long it takes. [[User:DG|D.]] [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 09:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
# '''If chosen, you will need to arbitrate on disputes arising from the creation or revision of articles. Experience of creating and revising articles yourself, particularly where it has involved collaboration, is very valuable in understanding the mindset of disputants who come to arbitration. With reference to your own edits in the main article namespace, please demonstrate why you think you have the right experience to be a good arbitrator.''' --[[User:Jguk|jguk]] 00:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
#: Actually, I'
# '''Please list out what other Wikipedia usernames you have edited under.''' --[[User:Jguk|jguk]] 00:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
#: I've edited under [[User:Not Wikipedia Administrator]] and under [[User:207.99.6.125]], and I stand by my full edit histories. I encourage prospective voters ''very strongly'' to examine them personally, as they're the best way to get to know a candidate as an editor and Wikipedian. [[User:DG|D.]] [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 03:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Line 33 ⟶ 34:
#: I'm actually very glad you asked me this. More than anything else, having gone through the new jersey public schooling system has necessarily made me a brilliant expert at both processing and generating bullshit of any and every classification. In fact, if I could name only one thing I'm terrific at, it's processing and generating bullshit. In a more wikipedian context, I am sure that if you just take a cursory look at my edits you will find yourself rolling in bullshit. This should settle any doubts. [[User:DG|D.]] [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 00:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
#Many policies contradict and overlap with each other, and then [[WP:IAR]] makes things even more complicated while making them paradoxically more flexible. When two or more policies apply and conflict, what do you do? [[User:Karmafist|karmafist]] 18:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
#:One thing I sure as hell don't do is split the difference. [[User:DG|D.]] [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 09:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
==Questions from [[User:-Ril-]]==
Line 38 ⟶ 40:
''Do you hold any strong political or religious opinions (e.g. concerning George Bush, Islam, or on which end you should break a boiled egg)? If so, would you recuse yourself from cases centred on these?''
:The only strong political opinion I hold is that the debate over abortion is overdramatised and wastes excessive political resources in the United States, resources that are not proportional to its relative importance. I don't expect it to come up, but if it does, and someone suggests or I find that it could be the case that it'd be less than expedient for me to arbitrate on the matter, I'd be happy to step aside for a bit. [[User:DG|D.]] [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 09:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
''How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"?''
:Terribly willing [[User:DG|D.]] [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 09:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
''Do you view all requests to re-address cases, particularly requests made by those most penalised, as being automatically without merit?''
:No, but I certainly view the vast majority of them to be, unless there are new facts of which we were not previously aware of. [[User:DG|D.]] [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 09:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
''In the case against Yuber, it was decided by the arbitration committee that it is the duty of arbitrators to investigate, and rule on the behaviour of not only one party involved, but all of them. Do you support this decision? [if current arbitrator] Does your visible behaviour on recent cases reflect this decision?''
:That makes sense to me. It's arbitration to resolve conflicts, not some sort of inquisitory trial. [[User:DG|D.]] [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 09:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
--Victim of signature fascism 16:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Line 50 ⟶ 59:
==Question by Ted Wilkes about his Conduct Code proposal==
Do you support the creation of a [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct]] as I have just now suggested at [[User talk:Jimbo Wales#A sincere question]]? - [[User:Ted Wilkes|Ted Wilkes]] 18:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
:No, I don't. Your proposal is stupid. [[User:DG|D.]] [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 09:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
==Question==
Line 56 ⟶ 67:
What is, in your opinion, the proper use of [[WP:IAR]]? When, if ever, should the rule be invoked to justify administrative action? [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 17:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
:I think it's a very good idea, and I think it should never, ever, be invoked to justify an administrative action. [[User:DG|D.]] [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 09:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
==Questions to many candidates by [[User:PurplePlatypus|PurplePlatypus]]==
| |||