Also.....
"reatin"?As always, the hope here is to reatin "Scotty the great Wikipedian" while removing "Scotty the problematic admin." Beeblebrox (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
"reatin"?As always, the hope here is to reatin "Scotty the great Wikipedian" while removing "Scotty the problematic admin." Beeblebrox (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I absolutely love the whole it was only a small detail and they removed it when I asked attempted defence. You of course see that deployed successfully all the time at AN/I, not. What a prick. Blind to his privelage even to the last.Of course I knew this was under discussion and did attempt to reply to the concerns raised, but I don't recall anyone mentioning this bizzare idea of suspending me for six months when my term is up in one month anyway. I can't say that makes a whole lot of sense.
Obviously, I think the committee made the wrong decision here. I'll cop to letting a small detail about something out on an external website. And when other committee members raised concerns about it, I asked for the post to be removed, and it was. And then I was told there was a "totality of evidence" of my wrongdoing that I needed to respond to, which I feel I did, just yesterday. I guess my replies didn't cut it. And you know what's funny, what I've just said, right here, contains the same level of detail about "priveledged communications" as the off-site post that led to this vote. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
The level of deceit it must have taken to write that. Presenting himself as if he was doing them a favour. Wow.The basics: I've been an active Wikipedian for most of the last 12 years, I've been an admin for the last decade, and a functionary for about 9 years. I also previously served on the 2014 ArbCom.
I honestly can't believe I'm nominating myself. After my previous stint in 2014 I swore I wouldn't do it again, but here we are. Why? Because the committee has clearly had a very rough year and there is massive turnover/burnout, and a lot of new blood is needed. I think we also need some old blood, some institutional memory and experience with the process, and it has been five years since my previous term expired, so it doesn't burn quite as bad anymore.
This job is hard. It often is no fun at all, but it does need to be done, and I've done it before and was surprised to find I'm willing to do it again. I believe my record speaks for itself, although I have a low tolerance for disruption of the project, I also endeavor to remember, and remind others, that we are dealing with real people here, whether we are patrolling their very first edit or deciding whether to ban them or not, we have to remember that.
His answers were the real Beeblebrox. Brushing aside concerns, deflecting, showing he does actually know the rules, promising to be better. All avoiding the substantive issues, the fears that, as it turned out, proved to be totally correct.What are your thoughts about functionaries and other advanced permission holders discussing Wikipedia and other Wikimedians (in otherwise good standing) with WMF banned editors, specifically those who have a history of doxing and harassment?
After you were recently reappointed as CU, allegations were made that you gossip[ed] about the CU log. How would you respond to this? --Rschen7754 19:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Yup, people sure did get what they voted for, an honesty of sorts. And they all know what he doesn't believe in.I have a reputation, which I am quite prod of, for being tough but also honest and fair. I am a terrible liar and would rather just say what I really think...... I don't intend to get up in everyone's faces and yell at them, but I won't participate in pretending to believe something I don't believe either.
Yup. And it was true of Fram too.Barkeep49 wrote:the committee had over the years received multiple complaints from editors......multiple complaints about multiple different people over the years