Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/NSLE

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006 | Candidate statements
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NSLE (talk | contribs) at 13:30, 6 January 2006 (→Questions by Rob Church). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Statement

I am absolutely horrified at the way things have been going on Wikipedia recently, it's definitely not a good way to start the new year. I've been here just over three months, but am already an admin, and I feel that I am trusted by many editors to uphold a neutral view.

The ArbCom needs a fresh approach to things, and I feel I can bring that to the ArbCom. I'm willing to recuse from any ArbCom dispute I may happen to be involved in. The main things for me, no matter what the context, ArbCom or not, are civility and no personal attacks. I don't subscribe to ignoring all rules. I believe this view helps us build a constructive encyclopedia.

Recusal, Code of Conduct, Expansion

I am asking these questions of all candidates:

1. Do you pledge to abide by the proposed recusal guidelines at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct#Recusal?

2. Are there any parts of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct that you do not agree with? If so, please describe in detail how you would improve them.

3. Will you please pledge to support expanding the number of seats on the Arbitration Committee? If not, how would you propose alleviating the present arbitration backlog?

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. —James S. 06:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fully support recusal section; I am however against no ex-post facto rules. With regard to that, I fully support the bit right below - "Alternative to above: Everything is fair game" - about this section. Otherwise, I agree with the general idea. And yes, I'd be more than happy to push for a bigger ArbCom. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 08:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions by Rob Church

  1. Why don't you subscribe to WP:IAR when it's appropriate?
  2. How would you deal with a dispute brought about by a user who's signature takes up some four lines of wikitext?

Ta. Rob Church Talk 14:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR for me ultimately causes most user/admin action conflicts on Wikipedia. Kelly Martin's RFC came about because she deleted stuff out-of-process. She ignored the rules when she deleted them, and we ended up with a big mess. To not subscribe to WP:IAR gives me a chance to express myself over something I might have done - either by explaining my actions and getting support, or apologising for a bad mistake (which I've already done once to bishonen, over the unblocking of User:Siblings CW). I'd have no excuses with WP:IAR (which some admins seem to be hiding behind). With regard to number 2, I assume this comes from Nightstallion's RFA. I'd treat it like any other dispute, although that would not change the fact that IMHO four lines of wikitext for a sig is too long. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 00:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it stems from the fact that your signature is four bloody lines long. Rob Church Talk 13:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I never did realise my sig was that long, I'll strip the colours. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 13:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, I got your point on IRC, again, thanks for pointing it out. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 13:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Candidate_statements/NSLE&oldid=34106805"