ArbCom election 2018

[CrowsNest]

Reader feedback on Wikipediocracy's election thread......

Yeah, i actually have expected more than this for some reason. I don't mind debate or disagreement, but this? Just childish. Not really surprising though, which is the actually sad thing about it.

Top notch work Jake.

As I've just detailed in another thread, it seems like Tarantino is too busy to be a moderator. Not that he is any good at it.

Keep at it GW. I assume it was me that persuaded you to run? I'll understand if you don't want to say, we get it. No votes in acknowledging our existence, much less wisdom, but plenty of votes in laughing at Kumioko and the people who indulge him. On that score, give Eric Corbett a kick for me, he seems to have forgotten you are meant to be his nemesis.

[CrowsNest]

Speaking of which.....

Gorrilla Warfare on her ArbCom question page....

I would only allow such documents to be posted if the person posted the documents themselves. Outside of that, they should absolutely be removed. Court documents reveal a lot more information about a person than the average editor is comfortable revealing on-wiki, so even if it can be firmly shown that the editor and the person named in court are the same person, it's still a violation of our policy against outing.

Boing! said Zebedee on her question page.......

Do you actually ride a unicycle?

Boing! said Zebedee on Wikioedicoracy's ArbCom election thread (where GW is also posting)....

Eric has a good point here - if there are real-world issues that might make an ArbCom candidate (or candidate for some other position) unsuitable for the role, shouldn't those being asked to vote be permitted to know about it?

......

But suppose someone stands for ArbCom, a role which will give them access to private information about individuals, and there is evidence out there that could suggest they should not be trusted with private information - that evidence is currently not allowed to be known by the voters unless the candidate volunteers it. Is that right?

Or more generally, if ArbCom is supposed to uphold some minimum ethical standards, and a candidate has been found to have violated ethical standards in another area, voters are not allowed to know that unless the candidate volunteers it. Is that right?

You say Wikipedia is only a web site, but people have been done serious real-world harm because of what happens on web sites - including on Wikipedia.

Boing! said Zebedee's on-wiki ArbCom voted guide.....

Supoort. I was pleased to see GorillaWarfare showing her hand at the last minute, as I think she has consistently been one of our best arbs. I do think she's mad to come back for another term, mind, but if she's willing to devote more time then, well, you have to be mad to want to be on ArbCom anyway. I've heard of some of the vile abuse to which GW has been subjected and it appalls me, but she appears to handle it with aplomb and I see that as a key strength. (I must also point out that it's too late to be the first to unicycle round the world, but the speed record is up for grabs.)

Isn't this just typical of the sort of cowardly Wikipedia insider that now infests Wikipediocracy, with their full blessing (because it drives views)?

It is so ironic Kumioko is allowed to whine at GW for her supposed evasion. She's dodged nothing in that thread, and people will know I've called her on it when she has been guilty of it. He's too obsessed with her to even notice Boing! is being a two faced little fuck, but nobody else noticed either. Happy to be seen as GW's friend and supporter on Wikipedia, but over on Wikipediocracy, in the company of her enemies, he's happy to support them in their not so subtle attempts to derail her campaign.

Hey Boing! Why haven't you asked GW an on-wiki question about her views on the OUTING policy, if you think them so wrong, and the role of Arbitrator so important? If she is elected, then it seems obvious she will stand behind her interpretations, not yours. As is her right, having made them clear for voters, something other candidates seem loathe to do.

What about the voter's rights to know your views? Who you might be supporting and why? Are you a true friend of GW, or are you just basking in her reflected glory, ready to stab her in the back when it proves to be convenient, like so many have done before. If you're concerned about the abuse she receives, why are you happy to agree with someone who has abused her many times in that shit pit, simply because he has no other way to show she was wrong to say he should be banned? The whole reason Eric kicked off that line of inquiry, on Wikipedia and Wikipediocracy, was vestigal butthurt over being sat in judgement over by a woman, this specific woman. You can't claim to be unaware of who has done what over the years.

Don't hide behind the fact Jake's policy is to protect people like you from accountability by keeping me away from you. Defend yourself. If you can.

This has been a message of the resistance.

HTD.

Whenever you're ready Gender Desk. You just jump in when you can......

[CrowsNest]

These people. Honestly.

Fred did this with his eyes open. Why on earth he did so I can't say, but he knew when he unblocked himself a second time he was doomed. He also knew he wasn't going to get elected to arbcom and has said as much, so this just seems like a really convoluted way to throw yourself under a bus.

It has to be the Alaskan cold that makes him say dumb shit like this, stuff directly explained and/or contradicted by the dude's own words. And threw himself under the bus? Sheesh. You want these people writing articles?

[CrowsNest]

I have not heard of any complaints, either from ArbCom customers or from my colleagues, about my supposed incivility.

Huh?

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... 5378#p5378

No wonder he is afraid of this forum.

The stupid fucker is so arrogant, catching him in a whopping but entirely self-serving lie is as easy as catching Trump.

Extra funny for being an example of him trying to pretend to be a woman to elicit sympathy. Or taking the piss out of feminists.

[Graaf Statler]

You can see that it is working quite well — the Wikipedia “criticism” sites have plenty to talk about now without actually criticizing Wikipedia.

“criticism” sites have plenty to talk about now without actually criticizing Wikipedia?

Madam gender, when will you stop to be so messy. And this is not the first time I say this to you, remember your Holland gender debacle. Call names, and not this and don't present yourself as the only critic because that is simple not true.

[CrowsNest]

ArbCom is a waste of time, it is highly unlikely the candidates will ever be people of sufficient intelligence and integrity to deal with an Administrator like Boing!, who are emblematic of the real problems it has with governance and standards of Administrators.

8 November:

So you are not open to discussing personal issues relating to civility if they are not deemed the business of the ordinary plebs who actually build the encyclopedia, but you want to be elected on a platform of enforcing civility on the rest of us? Why should we not consider that hypocrisy?

10 November:

Thank you for the sarcasm/condescension, it is noted.

12 November:

I blocked as an "any reasonable admin" action

13 November:

Your point that action by me could be seen as having undue influence on the election is well taken........My conclusion is that my best course of action, from among those that realistically presented themselves to me at the time, would have been to report Fred's moving of questions to ANI instead of acting myself.

16 November:

I'm surprised that someone who apparently rejects the concept of probing into inadequately answered questions ever managed to make it as a lawyer.

I don't think I've ever seen a case where the evidence is as clear and uncontroversial as this. I would have hoped you could tie this all up before the ArbCom voting ends, so both Fred and the voters know where things stand.

It's the brazen deceit that gets me. It isn't like the above is sealed testimony, it all part of their public record.

All because he is incapable of telling the truth. He wanted Fred disqualified, he didn't think any other Administrator who didn't share his opinion of Fred, or rather had no opinion of Fred, would step up to the plate, so he abused the trust placed in him to achieve it with his own hand.

The sad truth of Wikipedia being what it is, is if he simply told the truth, it wouldn't lead to him facing any consequences, and some editors would even respect him for doing what he did. In their view, you can betray the trust of the community, if you are doing so for the causes they support, causes like Fuck Civility! and Wikipedia for the Wikipedians!

It's not rocket science. They are unethical scum, so they do scummy unethical things and support others who do so too.

[CrowsNest]

Jytdog has outdone himself. Wasting time on a lengthy supposed question to the candidate for Fred, one he knew the answer to, which could have been said in ten words, while complaining about time wasting.

As bad as that is, yet more evidence of his Grade-A moronity and love of the drama, it's priceless seeing him hold forth on the violent crimes of Fred, while not saying a word, not a fucking word, about the others involved, who have all failed to adhere to the standards he has outlined, and not in a minor or remotely excusable way. No doubt he sees their failings as "Irrelevant to the case", as he has said repeatedly in the case.

When the most active users of Wikipedia are this bad, when the rest are too stupid or lazy to even highlight it, usually for fear of exposing their own shitness, then why even bother having an ArbCom? Even if you still held out a vain hope it might be staffed with suitably qualified people you can hand-pick for the right views, not this take it or leave it choice of six for six. Utterly pointless.

Not unlike appointing a steering committee for a pig sty. Every last one of them absolutely deserves the perpetual hell that being a Wikipedian is.

[CrowsNest]

This is how ineffectual wiki-justice is.

Boing! has just admitted himself in Arbitration space, that he is manifestly not Administrator material...

Though in the heat of the moment at ANI I !voted for a ban, I do not currently believe there are grounds for a site ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

On what planet does a Wikipedia Administrator who really is unbiased and really was just doing what any other a would have, as he has claimed, approach a site ban as if it were nothing, voting for it out of pure emotion, the same emotions that drove his edit warring and his blocking, and all his vile prejudicial commentary.

If he disputes this interpretation of his above words, he can live with the only other interpretation - he thought the community could be carried along with him in his targeted and out of process excision of Fred from the election, and when he realised they thought he had gone too far even by their own lack of standards when it comes to judgement and objectivity, he is now saying the diplomatic thing before the court, even though he doesn't believe it, just to avoid any possible consequences.

He needn't worry. This ArbCom doesn't care that Administrators cannot follow WP:ADMIN. That is the price to pay when the community started electing those very same Administrators to serve, and deselecting those who enforced it. A slow motion coup, a final phase in the hollowing out of any and all standards, that probably began around the time they binned RFC/U. Whoever is elected in this intake, won't change that. The maths just won't add up. Too much stupid. Too much evil. Too much scummyness.

Destruction is the only solution.

If you disagree, well, go fix it, as they say. Find a guy named Timothy Davenport, be Robin to his Robin.

Don't bother going to Wikipediocracy to challenge Boing! directly on a supposed independent platform, Uncle Jake has his back. His kind of people. His kind of standards. His badge of shame.

[Graaf Statler]

Destruction is the only solution.

If you disagree, well, go fix it, as they say. Find a guy named Timothy Davenport, be Robin to his Robin.

Timothy knows much, much better, Crow. like we all do. The only different is we say it and the others not. Nobody can fix Wikipedia on this whole world, there is no need to destruct it, because it is a self destructing system. And at the end of it's life cycles it blows itself, and I think we are pretty close to that moment. With one big blow.

There is no way to fix wikipedia, there is no way up. But some people have a good reason to look at the other side, an Tim is just one of them, but there are plenty more.

[CrowsNest]

Unsurprisingly, Iridescent is claiming he has now changed his mind over whether Fred needs to be banned.

These two cowardy pieces of shit, do they seriously think people are buying this? They should have the guts to admit their view of Fred hasn't changed, they're just afraid of what sticking to their original actions it makes them look like. Unfit to serve.

I wonder, at the end of this farce, how many of the people who were harassing Fred, will be perfectly happy with him merely being desysopped and his campaign derailed because of it. Funny how that worked out, right?

I notes with some amusement given the claims against him during this hit, he's doing a better job of actually answering questions put to him better than other candidates, who are piling up unanswered questions at quite the rate. And he of course has had more to answer. They just don't like his answers.

In his customary style however, Iridescent isn't exactly hiding his glee at the thought his pursuit of Bauder has now green lit another Administrator to throw the book at him for his next infraction, no matter how minor. The guy couldn't even be bothered to wait for the case to conclude before he said it. That is how unimportant it is to him whether or not other people agree with his assessment of his probity or Fred's guilt.

His chosen method of expressing what he thought of Fred's view of civility in the process of changing his mind on his ban proposal, was of course not civil at all. He would complain if the foot were on the other shoe.

All of this is happening right in front of ArbCom's faces, so you can see they don't give a flying fuck either. Hence why Fred ran on a restoring civility ticket.