This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee. | |||
---|---|---|---|
|
|||
|
I very much like the proposal to bring non-sensitive ArbCom discussions off of email and into public space. The current cast of ArbCom is not only extremely slow and timid about taking and expeditiously settling basic disputes (Muhammed pictures, etc.), they are secretive in their process. I also like the declaration that POV-Warrior disrupters will be whacked. Carrite ( talk) 02:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I like the idea in theory, but in practice, nobody will want to dedicate their time to defining what's "non-sensitive" or parsing the archives for it. The only way we can achieve some transparency is if ALL of arbcom's discussions would be made public after X years (5? 10?). I doubt it will happen anytime soon, as with all organizations (governments, etc.), nobody wants such things public till they are dead. Officially, it's to protect one's privacy, unofficially - too much embarrassing material for one's enemies to pour through for out of context quotations and other tasty morsels. I doubt ArbCom is any different. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=35679&st=120&p=290211&mode=linear#entry290211 – I don't have any any faith in AGK's ability to settle behavioral disputes. He or she carelessly accused me of being a banned user and an abuser of anonymous accounts. AGK also fails to understand what that thread was discussing ("I haven't read much of this thread, and I don't know the history of Fae's accounts"). AGK has deleted several revisions related to the Fae dispute, yet he or she admits to not knowing the full story. Should we elect a candidate who deletes revisions without question? Without knowing the full picture? Without understanding the concerns of the other side of the dispute? Should we really elect a candidate who doesn't do any research and who jumps to conclusions so quickly? -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 20:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Addendum: I also agree with Elonka's assessment of AGK:
I have worked with AGK on various projects, and have not been comfortable with his level of emotional maturity. I have found him to react very defensively when challenged, and I have strong concerns about his ability to handle the workload of being an arbitrator. I just don't think he would be a good arbitrator, and therefore, I must oppose.
-- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 21:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee. | |||
---|---|---|---|
|
|||
|
I very much like the proposal to bring non-sensitive ArbCom discussions off of email and into public space. The current cast of ArbCom is not only extremely slow and timid about taking and expeditiously settling basic disputes (Muhammed pictures, etc.), they are secretive in their process. I also like the declaration that POV-Warrior disrupters will be whacked. Carrite ( talk) 02:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I like the idea in theory, but in practice, nobody will want to dedicate their time to defining what's "non-sensitive" or parsing the archives for it. The only way we can achieve some transparency is if ALL of arbcom's discussions would be made public after X years (5? 10?). I doubt it will happen anytime soon, as with all organizations (governments, etc.), nobody wants such things public till they are dead. Officially, it's to protect one's privacy, unofficially - too much embarrassing material for one's enemies to pour through for out of context quotations and other tasty morsels. I doubt ArbCom is any different. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=35679&st=120&p=290211&mode=linear#entry290211 – I don't have any any faith in AGK's ability to settle behavioral disputes. He or she carelessly accused me of being a banned user and an abuser of anonymous accounts. AGK also fails to understand what that thread was discussing ("I haven't read much of this thread, and I don't know the history of Fae's accounts"). AGK has deleted several revisions related to the Fae dispute, yet he or she admits to not knowing the full story. Should we elect a candidate who deletes revisions without question? Without knowing the full picture? Without understanding the concerns of the other side of the dispute? Should we really elect a candidate who doesn't do any research and who jumps to conclusions so quickly? -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 20:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Addendum: I also agree with Elonka's assessment of AGK:
I have worked with AGK on various projects, and have not been comfortable with his level of emotional maturity. I have found him to react very defensively when challenged, and I have strong concerns about his ability to handle the workload of being an arbitrator. I just don't think he would be a good arbitrator, and therefore, I must oppose.
-- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 21:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)