Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Kww: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m →Kww |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
* It's important for ArbCom members to communicate reasonably well to avoid appearance of an isolated institution, and the ability of this candidate to fulfill that require appears questionable. Well reasoned and supported queries about any details of their decision process from an assortment of parties are met with either [[User_talk:Kww#Why_was_UFC_155_deleted.3F|dodging/silence or at best unhelpful vague answers]]. Also contrary to their statement that wiki should be well trimmed ("[[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012/Candidates/Kww/Questions#General_questions|consolidation of material]]"), they appear to have no reservations about leaving behind a mess of broken links and whatnot as a result of aforementioned deletions despite being prodded about it (yet finds time instead to shut down any more complaints). By the candidate's own reasoning this rather opaque and uncooperative behavior shouldn't be so readily exhibited in the sort of editors that constitute wiki's highest authority. [[User:Agent00f|Agent00f]] ([[User talk:Agent00f|talk]]) 14:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC) |
* It's important for ArbCom members to communicate reasonably well to avoid appearance of an isolated institution, and the ability of this candidate to fulfill that require appears questionable. Well reasoned and supported queries about any details of their decision process from an assortment of parties are met with either [[User_talk:Kww#Why_was_UFC_155_deleted.3F|dodging/silence or at best unhelpful vague answers]]. Also contrary to their statement that wiki should be well trimmed ("[[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012/Candidates/Kww/Questions#General_questions|consolidation of material]]"), they appear to have no reservations about leaving behind a mess of broken links and whatnot as a result of aforementioned deletions despite being prodded about it (yet finds time instead to shut down any more complaints). By the candidate's own reasoning this rather opaque and uncooperative behavior shouldn't be so readily exhibited in the sort of editors that constitute wiki's highest authority. [[User:Agent00f|Agent00f]] ([[User talk:Agent00f|talk]]) 14:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC) |
||
:* I've answered. I've answered several times, in fact. The fact that you ''disagree'' with my answer doesn't mean that I haven't answered, it simply means that you disagree with the answer. You can't keep asking the same question over and over and demand that someone reply each and every time.—[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 18:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC) |
:* I've answered. I've answered several times, in fact. The fact that you ''disagree'' with my answer doesn't mean that I haven't answered, it simply means that you disagree with the answer. You can't keep asking the same question over and over and demand that someone reply each and every time.—[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 18:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC) |
||
::* Just because there are words in a non-answer doesn't mean it's the same thing as an answer. Let's hope that candidates for ArbCom at a minimum are able to tell the difference. To be specific, you were asked by numerous people for the reasoning behind deletion decision(s) which are not only at odds with other admins but seems to completely ignore the detailed discussion at AfD. I acknowledge there were words typed in reply to |
::* Just because there are words in a non-answer doesn't mean it's the same thing as an answer. Let's hope that candidates for ArbCom at a minimum are able to tell the difference. To be specific, you were asked by numerous people for the reasoning behind deletion decision(s) which are not only at odds with other admins but seems to completely ignore the detailed discussion at AfD. I acknowledge there were words typed in reply to a couple of them, but ''all'' of the questions and concerns still lack answers. |
||
::* It's now finally evident from the ArbCom candidate Q&A that this implements a personal view that wiki is getting too large. However, this isn't a paper encyclopedia and ignores one of the major benefits (and original vision) of an electronic site. This is reflected in the fact that most hits are through the long tail of search (eg. Google), where size is only an advantage not a drawback. I might add that a [[User_talk:Kww#Reductionist_Attitude_and_the_UFC|very detailed and well articulated comment]] concerning this and more on your talk page by another editor was also met with silence. Perhaps answers would be more forthcoming for the larger audience here. [[User:Agent00f|Agent00f]] ([[User talk:Agent00f|talk]]) 23:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC) |
::* It's now finally evident from the ArbCom candidate Q&A that this implements a personal view that wiki is getting too large. However, this isn't a paper encyclopedia and ignores one of the major benefits (and original vision) of an electronic site. This is reflected in the fact that most hits are through the long tail of search (eg. Google), where size is only an advantage not a drawback. I might add that a [[User_talk:Kww#Reductionist_Attitude_and_the_UFC|very detailed and well articulated comment]] concerning this and more on your talk page by another editor was also met with silence. Perhaps answers would be more forthcoming for the larger audience here. [[User:Agent00f|Agent00f]] ([[User talk:Agent00f|talk]]) 23:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 23:53, 25 November 2012
- It's important for ArbCom members to communicate reasonably well to avoid appearance of an isolated institution, and the ability of this candidate to fulfill that require appears questionable. Well reasoned and supported queries about any details of their decision process from an assortment of parties are met with either dodging/silence or at best unhelpful vague answers. Also contrary to their statement that wiki should be well trimmed ("consolidation of material"), they appear to have no reservations about leaving behind a mess of broken links and whatnot as a result of aforementioned deletions despite being prodded about it (yet finds time instead to shut down any more complaints). By the candidate's own reasoning this rather opaque and uncooperative behavior shouldn't be so readily exhibited in the sort of editors that constitute wiki's highest authority. Agent00f (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've answered. I've answered several times, in fact. The fact that you disagree with my answer doesn't mean that I haven't answered, it simply means that you disagree with the answer. You can't keep asking the same question over and over and demand that someone reply each and every time.—Kww(talk) 18:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Just because there are words in a non-answer doesn't mean it's the same thing as an answer. Let's hope that candidates for ArbCom at a minimum are able to tell the difference. To be specific, you were asked by numerous people for the reasoning behind deletion decision(s) which are not only at odds with other admins but seems to completely ignore the detailed discussion at AfD. I acknowledge there were words typed in reply to a couple of them, but all of the questions and concerns still lack answers.
- It's now finally evident from the ArbCom candidate Q&A that this implements a personal view that wiki is getting too large. However, this isn't a paper encyclopedia and ignores one of the major benefits (and original vision) of an electronic site. This is reflected in the fact that most hits are through the long tail of search (eg. Google), where size is only an advantage not a drawback. I might add that a very detailed and well articulated comment concerning this and more on your talk page by another editor was also met with silence. Perhaps answers would be more forthcoming for the larger audience here. Agent00f (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)