Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections July 2004/Candidate statements: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:44, 26 July 2004

Revision as of 23:44, 26 July 2004

Line 53:

I provide my edit history as example of my neutrality and judgment, and my talk page in order to contact me w any questions regarding my positions on various matters. Generally I tend to side w the consensus of other committee members, with a preference toward progressive punishment. In the case of Paul Vogel, I would have voted to ban for one month, with his return conditional on creating a user account, obeying policy, avoiding copyright violations, etc., w any violation resulting in a 2 month ban, etc. I strongly favor the doubling policy in regards to punishments, starting with a small penalty, and doubling it with each subsequent violation.

I think the arbitration committee should not be in the business of writing policy, but that individual members should be encouraged to submit policy proposals, and guide public consensus, voting often and voicing their opinions on sundry matters of importance. I think it is imperative that arbitration committee members respect and enforce policy and precedent, rather than becoming "rogue" judges. I support [[Wikipedia:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors]] as a policy proposal, and in general am strongly in favor of more policy enforcement.

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 04:13, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)