Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates/Lourdes

Lourdes
"I myself would have wished that some of the editors I respect the most, such as Iridescent, Tony Ballioni, Cullen, and Ritchie were standing too, to give the community a wider option from an outstanding base" - I can't speak for the others, but for me, I think Monty Brewster said it best. "I'll only make things worse - and that's a promise!" And MelanieN would rather drive flaming bamboo splints under her fingernails. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , your "worse" is absolutely welcome :D Do please put yourself up next time. <3 Lourdes   03:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Candidant for launching this RfC. Lourdes appears willing to jump in to address long-term civility problems.  --David Tornheim (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Question avoidance
While not surprised, I am rather disappointed in the non-answers provided to my questions and recommend anyone considering to vote for Lourdes to take that into consideration. An inability to answer difficult questions, tackle difficult problems, or handle potential invective from other people shows a lack of suitability for the role of arbitrator. If you won't answer those questions, then what else won't you do, Lourdes? Nihlus 23:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Candidates can choose whether or not to answer questions and editors can interpret that choice however they wish to. We all have a vote which will give you an opportunity, Nihlus, to vote on whether or not you think Lourdes should receive a seat on the Committee. Since you have a strong opinion on this, maybe you should put together a candidate guide for this election. Liz Read! Talk! 00:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , I'm aware that candidates can choose whether or not to answer questions, just as they should be aware of how their actions can be interpreted. I don't have the time to write a full guide this year, but I may consider it in the future. Nihlus  04:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm experiencing unsurprising disappointment at your characteristic negativity, User:Nihlus. 66.193.132.1 (talk) 01:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Remind me where we have interacted before. I don't recall. Nihlus  04:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * First, I’m disappointed that there isn’t some statement from each candidate. Most of their pages are empty right now. Are we supposed to look at their edit histories to get an idea of who they are or am I missing something? (This is the first time I’ve taken part in this) Second, I agree with  if someone asks a question, even if you aren’t required to answer you don’t display much commitment if you don’t bother to respond --MadScientistX11 (talk) 03:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You can use this link for an overview of their statements and links to their Q&A's.  PizzaMan  ♨♨♨  06:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, that’s what I was looking for. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have to admit, I was thinking of not voting as I generally haven't in a few years. I'm now thinking of doing so this year, at least to vote in support of Lourdes mostly based on this silliness although I'm not sure if I will (since I will at least need to make sure that there is reason to vote for them besides this silliness). I can't help thinking I'm not the only one who's vote in support of Lourdes has been influenced by this. Think of that what you will. Nil Einne (talk) 12:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that this was a vote on my nonexistent candidacy. Nihlus  04:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)