Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Filiocht: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:33, 10 December 2005

Revision as of 08:58, 12 December 2005

Line 120:

:No simple answer here, I'm afraid. I've been around long enough to fondly remember the days when I was familiar with all the regulars on AfD, the Pump, etc. However, I'm painfully aware that the way things worked then have not really scaled with the project. On the other hand, I suffer from a deep-rooted aversion to "centrally controlled authoritarian system(s)". So my view is that we need to avoid going down the centralisation route as much as possible. We also need to build much clearer guidelines for consensus-building. Consensus is, at one and the same time, one of the most widely used and one of the most widely misunderstood words in Wikipedia debate. I would us like to put together an agreed definition of consensus and then to ensure that all decision-making processes work to that definition. ArbCom's role would probably be mainly to rule on cases of non-consensual behaviour. Who cares if the train is late if you have good neighbours to talk to on the platform? [[User:Filiocht|Filiocht]] | [[User talk:Filiocht|The kettle's on]] 09:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

==Question from [[User:Ted Wilkes|Ted Wilkes]==

Do you support the creation of a [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct]] as I have just now suggested at [[User talk:Jimbo Wales#A sincere question]]? - [[User:Ted Wilkes|Ted Wilkes]] 18:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)Yes, I do. [[User:Filiocht|Filiocht]] | [[User talk:Filiocht|The kettle's on]] 08:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)