User talk:Majorly/ACE2009
Q9
[edit]Interesting that you seem to disagree with my response to Q9 for exactly the opposite reason that I state; you appear to see it as placing functionaries at the mercy of ArbCom — I see it as protecting functionaries from mob retribution (or at least so I guess from your critique of Q27/28, I might just not understand your position right).
As for the others — well, we seem to be proceeding from different approaches and it just look like we plain 'ol don't see eye to eye. And that's okay. — Coren (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't believe the community are a mob. I don't believe Arbcom are able to make the right call. Majorly talk 16:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Not always, certainly, but you know as well as I do that one inflamatory message is often enough to start a major explosion where nobody actually looks at the facts anymore and decisions are made according to whoever manages to be the most loud/noticable (or, worse, just "whoever shows up in the right 15 minutes")— ArbCom members aren't immune to this, but it is considerably less likely.
The best of both worlds, obviously, would be that most cases go to a community process that then brings its recommendation to ArbCom for action— still provides a safety barrier but doesn't rely on ArbCom to notice/act in typical cases. — Coren (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Not always, certainly, but you know as well as I do that one inflamatory message is often enough to start a major explosion where nobody actually looks at the facts anymore and decisions are made according to whoever manages to be the most loud/noticable (or, worse, just "whoever shows up in the right 15 minutes")— ArbCom members aren't immune to this, but it is considerably less likely.
Mass creation of stubs
[edit]The early proposal of FritzpollBot, about 12-18 months ago, I believe is what you're referring to. One of the first times I had to deal with the community en masse, saw the objection, changed the proposal until there was general acceptance of the methodology. Then sat back, looked at it, re-read people's comments and thought "this isn't really a good idea at all". I never implemented it, and have opposed automated stub creation ever since. I will confess to having gone along with the idea at the time, and if that means an oppose, so be it - but for the record, I have been of the same opinion as you for quite some time. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- That's good to hear; I thought as much. I probably wouldn't oppose over that anyway. Majorly talk 19:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Just wanted to clarify :) Fritzpoll (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
"Seemed to grow up overnight"
[edit]My thoughts, if you're interested: you really were bang on with your evaluation of my candidacy. I guess that, as of a year or so back, I just started to take things seriously on here. Your guide was a good read. Regards, AGK 22:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)