Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/DG: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
|||
Line 73:
#How do you view the role (and relative importance) of [[WP:Civility]] in the process of building a factually accurate encyclopedia? How do you view editors who are normally correct in article namespace, but who may be perceived as rude – including to longtime, popular editors and admins – on Talk pages and the like?
:Civility is one of the core pillars of Wikipedia. The most important thing to remember is that through it all, no matter how much we may disagree, we are all focussing on the same goal, that of creating a free encyclopaedia. As long as there is that bit of united strength, I think we can smooth over most any conflict. When that civility and reasonableness is no longer there, all bets are off. That said, that is why some of the POV trolls are so dangerous. They do not really believe in the project; they merely want to extoll their own ideology. [[User:DG|D.]] [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 09:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
#Do you have an academic background of any kind, and if so, in what field? How do you handle critiques from your peers and professors (assuming those aren’t one and the same), which may be sharply worded or otherwise skirt the edges of [[WP:Civility]] even if they are correct? Considering those professors who have recently had you as a student, what would ''they'' tell me if I asked them the same question about you?
:This is just a strange question. [[User:DG|D.]] [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 09:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
#What are your views on the proposed policy [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct]]? Whether you think it should be a formal policy or not, do you believe you would generally act in accordance with it? What aspects of it do you think should not be there, or to put it another way, are there any proposals there which you can think of good reasons to ignore on a regular basis? (Please date any replies to this question as the proposal may well change over time.)
:It makes sense to me, and I believe I'd generally act in accordance with it. I don't think it ought to be passed though. There's enough of a backlog already without binding arbitrators' hands and creating a process to investigate the investigators. Unless you hope the code will be self-policing, in which case whether or not it is real policy is entirely moot. [[User:DG|D.]] [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 09:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
[[User:PurplePlatypus|PurplePlatypus]] 08:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Line 81 ⟶ 87:
Do you support [[Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights]]? ([[User:SEWilco|SEWilco]] 05:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC))
== Questions being asked by [[User:Titoxd|Titoxd]] to all candidates ==
# How much of your Wikipedia time do you plan to spend on ArbCom business?
: All of it. I'm retiring from editing. [[User:DG|D.]] [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 09:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
# If you were elected and had to spend most of your time in ArbCom delibations, which projects would you consider to be the most negatively affected by your absence?
: All of them. That's life. [[User:DG|D.]] [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 09:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
# To what extent would those projects be affected?
: They would be terminated. [[User:DG|D.]] [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 09:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
[[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[User:Titoxd/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]])</sup> 06:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Line 98 ⟶ 112:
''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?''
:What these questions seem to be asking me to do is take sides as to the sovereignty of Jimbo Wales. I'll eat that bait, thank you, and side well on whichever side it is that says that Jimmy is great. From the start, Jimmy Wales has acted as a terrific patron of the Wikipedia community, and has shown restraint and judgement. You want to tie his hands up and take away even the small token right to exercise his overarching good judgement in the case that it might be necessary for the good of the free encyclopaedia, a right he has rarely exercised and hardly abused. Frankly, work on something more worthwhile, please. [[User:DG|D.]] [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 09:47, 9 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'm a cop, not a doc. [[User:DG|D.]] [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 09:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
--[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] | [[User:-Ril-/Biblecruft|help remove biblecruft]] 02:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 116 ⟶ 134:
Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. —[[User:Nrcprm2026|<i>James S.</i>]] 06:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
: The answer to all these questions of your, James, is yes, I'm in favour of all that, and it's good, and so on. This is all hardly objectionable. Who isn't in favour of recusal in case of conflict of interest and so on? Pitch me some tougher questions next round. [[User:DG|D.]] [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 09:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
| |||