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

Revision as of 03:16, 15 November 2004

Revision as of 03:19, 15 November 2004

Line 19:

==Ambi==

Since my arrival here sometime in 2003, I guess I've become one of the Arbitration Committee's strongest critics. So I'ved hadlike plentyto ofput involvementmy withhand casesup (thoughto onlyactually oncedo assomething aabout direct participant)this, sorather I'mthan wellstanding aware ofon the committee'ssidelines workingsand complaining. So I'dve likehad toplenty putof myinvolvement handwith upcases to(though actuallyonly doonce somethingas abouta thisdirect participant), ratherwhich thanhas standinggiven onme a fairly clear understanding of the sidelinesworkings andof complainingthe arbitration process.

Above all, the most severe problem facing the Committee is its speed. Justice delayed is justice denied. If I'm elected, I will personally begin work on findings if no evidence has been presented in a new case in a week, and if there's problems getting arbitrators to vote, I will personally see that each arbitrator is aware that their presence is required.

I believe I shouldn't have too much trouble staying impartial. I've requested action against users that I agree with ideologically, and I've defended users I personally dislike. I firmly believe that we should give an individual every chance to reform if they have a record of legitimate (and I use this term loosely) contributions in addition to those which are problematic. That said, I have very little sympathy for the garden-variety warrior who comes here only to push their point of view on a particular issue at the expense of all others.

That's what you could expect from my term if elected. If you have any questions or concerns, ''please'' contact me [[User:Ambi/Questions for the candidate|here]] - I'd be happy to hear from you. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 03:1013, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

==[[User:Grunt|Grunt]]==

Line 91:

If I were to join the arbitration committee that would mean leaving the mediation committee. In some ways that would be a shame, because believe strongly that mediation is important and worthwhile, but I also feel that I have something to offer to the arbitration end of dispute resolution. -- [[User:Sannse|sannse]] ([[user talk:Sannse/Arbitration election|election talk]]) 23:12, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

==Ambi==

Since my arrival here sometime in 2003, I guess I've become one of the Arbitration Committee's strongest critics. So I'd like to put my hand up to actually do something about this, rather than standing on the sidelines and complaining. I've had plenty of involvement with cases (though only once as a direct participant), which has given me a fairly clear understanding of the workings of the arbitration process.

Above all, the most severe problem facing the Committee is its speed. Justice delayed is justice denied. If I'm elected, I will personally begin work on findings if no evidence has been presented in a new case in a week, and if there's problems getting arbitrators to vote, I will personally see that each arbitrator is aware that their presence is required.

I believe I shouldn't have too much trouble staying impartial. I've requested action against users that I agree with ideologically, and I've defended users I personally dislike. I firmly believe that we should give an individual every chance to reform if they have a record of legitimate (and I use this term loosely) contributions in addition to those which are problematic. That said, I have very little sympathy for the garden-variety warrior who comes here only to push their point of view on a particular issue at the expense of all others.

That's what you could expect from my term if elected. If you have any questions or concerns, ''please'' contact me [[User:Ambi/Questions for the candidate|here]] - I'd be happy to hear from you. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 03:13, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)