Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Statement regarding recent leaks from arbcom-l: you were, actually |
|||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
(ec)I also find this very interesting and I find that the inference that some of it was considered to be an attempt at intimidating other Arbs deeply troubling. [[User:Kumioko|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:Kumioko|talk]]) 05:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC) |
(ec)I also find this very interesting and I find that the inference that some of it was considered to be an attempt at intimidating other Arbs deeply troubling. [[User:Kumioko|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:Kumioko|talk]]) 05:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC) |
||
:Intimidation? Why, then, was I not censured at the time? All I did was state that the committee's failure to address Malleus Fatuorum's incivility towards committee members was likely to become a campaign issue in these elections. If stating an intention to use an open and public process to discuss differences in approach to handling incivility is intimidation, then I plead guilty as charged! The irony is, the actual issue has been obscured by these leaks. I can handle being wrong, or being outvoted, or being told that my conversation on the mailing list was no longer welcome... but when an intent to bring openness and sunlight into the process is misconstrued as intimidation, then there is something seriously wrong with the conversation. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 05:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC) |
:Intimidation? Why, then, was I not censured at the time? All I did was state that the committee's failure to address Malleus Fatuorum's incivility towards committee members was likely to become a campaign issue in these elections. If stating an intention to use an open and public process to discuss differences in approach to handling incivility is intimidation, then I plead guilty as charged! The irony is, the actual issue has been obscured by these leaks. I can handle being wrong, or being outvoted, or being told that my conversation on the mailing list was no longer welcome... but when an intent to bring openness and sunlight into the process is misconstrued as intimidation, then there is something seriously wrong with the conversation. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 05:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC) |
||
::After you made that comment, both myself and another list administrator told you in no uncertain terms that the mailing list was not to be used for electioneering of any sort. It may not have been public, but it was a censure nonetheless. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 05:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 05:47, 26 November 2012
|
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Statement regarding recent leaks from arbcom-l
So one sitting Arb inappropriately leaked information from a private mailing list and another sitting Arb was (apparently) sending inappropriate posts to a private mailing list. And now there's a statement in which neither is stepping down (or even apologizing)? Interesting. I wonder if either Arb has posted on this topic elsewhere.... --MZMcBride (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- I want to extend my thanks to the candidates who reported the mailing list disclosure to sitting arbitrators whom they considered trustworthy, and to the committee for settling on a version of this disclosure that is probably the least bad one possible under the circumstances. Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
(ec)I also find this very interesting and I find that the inference that some of it was considered to be an attempt at intimidating other Arbs deeply troubling. Kumioko (talk) 05:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Intimidation? Why, then, was I not censured at the time? All I did was state that the committee's failure to address Malleus Fatuorum's incivility towards committee members was likely to become a campaign issue in these elections. If stating an intention to use an open and public process to discuss differences in approach to handling incivility is intimidation, then I plead guilty as charged! The irony is, the actual issue has been obscured by these leaks. I can handle being wrong, or being outvoted, or being told that my conversation on the mailing list was no longer welcome... but when an intent to bring openness and sunlight into the process is misconstrued as intimidation, then there is something seriously wrong with the conversation. Jclemens (talk) 05:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)