|
This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|||
| |||
A detailed breakdown of this candidate's edits in article and Wikipedia spaces can be found here. Franamax ( talk) 02:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
LessHeard vanU As I do not believe in a system where my support may be rendered ineffective by the considerations of Jimbo and the existing ArbCom I shall only be supporting Risker; however, had my vote potential been not been constrained by the apparatus employed I would have supported this candidate. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 00:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that some editors appear to be opposing based on a concern that Casliber's excellent content contributions will diminish if he is elected. While that may be true (and I understand that concern), we all volunteers here, and each of us has the right to choose the areas in which we contribute. We should not seek to limit a volunteer's foray into a new area because of a prospective loss of that editor's contributions in another area. Kablammo ( talk) 14:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Erm you've lost me. I don't understand log; G4. If you're watching this page. (I am leaving this here as per your talkpage instructions) Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I was just going to post the same thing. I checked your log, searched for G4, and found a couple of things, but neither make much sense in context of opposing. Moreover, WMC's oppose is one of the most shocking things I've seen on these votes. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, not trying to be obscure or shocking. "log" means your admin action log; I see nothing there indicating you're doing the kind of stuff leading up to arbcomm. ";" is a statement separator :-). "G4" is Giggy's questions, number 4. Your answer there is very weak
William M. Connolley (
talk) 22:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I can see why the first part (the selection of the case) is weak. But I rather like the second part ("either make a complaint and run with it, or keep it to oneself"). --
Stephan Schulz (
talk) 22:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- FWIW this response is one of the main reasons I'm supporting Casliber. Leaving that "in preparation" evidence page hanging ominously for ages was not good.
Short Brigade Harvester Boris (
talk) 22:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't agree. With the many failings of arbcomm last year (remember the disastrous FT2 secret trials? OM might) this is the most interesting thing to say? No. Its not even the most intersting thing to say about that case William M. Connolley ( talk) 23:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- FWIW this response is one of the main reasons I'm supporting Casliber. Leaving that "in preparation" evidence page hanging ominously for ages was not good.
Short Brigade Harvester Boris (
talk) 22:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I can see why the first part (the selection of the case) is weak. But I rather like the second part ("either make a complaint and run with it, or keep it to oneself"). --
Stephan Schulz (
talk) 22:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I can see. I answered Giggy's early on...and wrote that bit before I fully digested the Matthew Hoffman case (which I would have put there as well or linked to the below bits). Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 22:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
PS: William M. Connolley is entitled to his opinion; his other point I conceded in my opneiing statement. I have not been involved to date - if people take significant involvement in the arbitration process to date as a prerequisite for all electees/candidates, that is their right to do so FWIW. Not much I can do about that retrospectively. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Now its my turn to be confused. Who is asking you to already be sig involved in arbcomm? William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, I meant your admin actions. I couldn't see any signs of you doing the kind of actions that would prepare you for arbcomm, it all seems very bland. I hope you won't be jumping to conclusions like this if you become an arb William M. Connolley ( talk) 15:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I can not vote in arb election. I not have enough edits, but if I could I'd vote for you. — JoJo • Talk • 22:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I am intrigued that someone could call me for failure to unambiguously support fundamental policies such as Wikipedia:Civility, yet use a word such as "glib" which is (a) somewhat pejorative, and (b) very general and (could be said) subjective. Furthermore, many have raised concerns with civility and how it is interpreted, not in the least the guideline itself which has "normally" written within it. Do I think civility is important? Very much so, but when interpretation and application is clashing with the growth of the encyclopedia by drama or otherwise, it needs to be looked at. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
|
This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|||
| |||
A detailed breakdown of this candidate's edits in article and Wikipedia spaces can be found here. Franamax ( talk) 02:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
LessHeard vanU As I do not believe in a system where my support may be rendered ineffective by the considerations of Jimbo and the existing ArbCom I shall only be supporting Risker; however, had my vote potential been not been constrained by the apparatus employed I would have supported this candidate. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 00:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that some editors appear to be opposing based on a concern that Casliber's excellent content contributions will diminish if he is elected. While that may be true (and I understand that concern), we all volunteers here, and each of us has the right to choose the areas in which we contribute. We should not seek to limit a volunteer's foray into a new area because of a prospective loss of that editor's contributions in another area. Kablammo ( talk) 14:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Erm you've lost me. I don't understand log; G4. If you're watching this page. (I am leaving this here as per your talkpage instructions) Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I was just going to post the same thing. I checked your log, searched for G4, and found a couple of things, but neither make much sense in context of opposing. Moreover, WMC's oppose is one of the most shocking things I've seen on these votes. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, not trying to be obscure or shocking. "log" means your admin action log; I see nothing there indicating you're doing the kind of stuff leading up to arbcomm. ";" is a statement separator :-). "G4" is Giggy's questions, number 4. Your answer there is very weak
William M. Connolley (
talk) 22:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I can see why the first part (the selection of the case) is weak. But I rather like the second part ("either make a complaint and run with it, or keep it to oneself"). --
Stephan Schulz (
talk) 22:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- FWIW this response is one of the main reasons I'm supporting Casliber. Leaving that "in preparation" evidence page hanging ominously for ages was not good.
Short Brigade Harvester Boris (
talk) 22:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't agree. With the many failings of arbcomm last year (remember the disastrous FT2 secret trials? OM might) this is the most interesting thing to say? No. Its not even the most intersting thing to say about that case William M. Connolley ( talk) 23:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- FWIW this response is one of the main reasons I'm supporting Casliber. Leaving that "in preparation" evidence page hanging ominously for ages was not good.
Short Brigade Harvester Boris (
talk) 22:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I can see why the first part (the selection of the case) is weak. But I rather like the second part ("either make a complaint and run with it, or keep it to oneself"). --
Stephan Schulz (
talk) 22:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I can see. I answered Giggy's early on...and wrote that bit before I fully digested the Matthew Hoffman case (which I would have put there as well or linked to the below bits). Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 22:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
PS: William M. Connolley is entitled to his opinion; his other point I conceded in my opneiing statement. I have not been involved to date - if people take significant involvement in the arbitration process to date as a prerequisite for all electees/candidates, that is their right to do so FWIW. Not much I can do about that retrospectively. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Now its my turn to be confused. Who is asking you to already be sig involved in arbcomm? William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, I meant your admin actions. I couldn't see any signs of you doing the kind of actions that would prepare you for arbcomm, it all seems very bland. I hope you won't be jumping to conclusions like this if you become an arb William M. Connolley ( talk) 15:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I can not vote in arb election. I not have enough edits, but if I could I'd vote for you. — JoJo • Talk • 22:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I am intrigued that someone could call me for failure to unambiguously support fundamental policies such as Wikipedia:Civility, yet use a word such as "glib" which is (a) somewhat pejorative, and (b) very general and (could be said) subjective. Furthermore, many have raised concerns with civility and how it is interpreted, not in the least the guideline itself which has "normally" written within it. Do I think civility is important? Very much so, but when interpretation and application is clashing with the growth of the encyclopedia by drama or otherwise, it needs to be looked at. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)