Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Mailer diablo: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 11:
The reason why there was only one question on Q&A, is because I joined the elections around the last few days. I apologise for my lateness in my candidacy. I'm not sure if questions may still be posted, but if it is I welcome any new questions to be posted to clarify your doubts.
After looking at the current votes, I suppose many would like me to elaborate on my statement and direction, so here it is. Personally, I believe that punishment should be handed out on the basis that it would hopefully reform users, and giving them a second chance of change. Don't be surprised to see me in favour for shorter bans in place of alternative action (such as mentorship, probation, article bans, etc). A good example would be [[User:Mike Garcia|Mike Garcia]], reformed member currently on mentorship under Jimbo's instructions. If you simply hardban a user outright, he/she's probably only going to jump his/her ban and continually reset the date.
I believe an arbitrator should have three important aspects that they must uphold, which are part of my principles - Integrity, civility and sense of shame :
| |||