What an extraordinary collection of serious accusations.
https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... 16#p336816
Volunteer Marek wrote:I wasn’t going to comment on this election because first, I’m don’t think a single opinion can actually sway the results much and second, because up until recently the standing candidates were all in my view pretty good, or at least not too objectionable. But since Wugapodes has decided to stand for another term I really feel compelled, even forced, to say something.
Wugapodes was easily one of the worst serving ArbCom members I have ever had the mispleasure to witness, and my memories here go back to 2005. Off the top of my head, the only worse person to have ever served on the Committee I can think of was Rlevse/PumpkinSky and that guy is indef banned.
Of course the obvious counter here is that I’m just holding a grudge. But sometime people have a good reason to hold a grudge. Like when a shitty person genuinely tries to screw you over and then shows up acting as if they did nothing wrong and asks for more accolades. That kind of thing just turns your stomach to a point where you have to say something. And in general I’m not a grudge holding person. Cabayi voted to topic ban me but I don’t hold it against them – I plan on, and encourage others, to support them. Hell, even with Beeblebrox, who voted to indef me (unsuccessfully), if they were running, I’d probably stay neutral. Those two votes, while I obviously disagree with them, weren’t personal and they didn’t involve some extremely toxic abuse of their positions as arbitrators.
Wugapodes did however make it personal. And he did abuse his position as a drafting Arb in the Holocaust in Poland case. He manipulated, lied, insinuated, invented and attempted to railroad me in particular (he also did shitty things to other participants of that case). And he seemingly did it for extremely petty reasons; a disagreement I had had with him a few years (!) prior and the fact that I called one of his rants “unhinged” here on Wikipediocracy.
It began soon after the case opened, where he actively tried to solicit “the right kind” of evidence (that would justify the bans he already had in mind), continued with his repeated attempts to present evidence himself despite the fact that he was a drafting Arb (imagine a judge appointing himself as a witness or a prosecutor!), and then again with his unabashedly bad-faithed “summaries” of evidence presented by others. And it culminated in a completely unhinged rant about me in the final phase of the case where he insulted me personally, falsely accused me of things he had no evidence for and which were simply figments of his own imagination, and made statements that if this was a non-Arb, non-admin user would’ve clearly resulted in a block from Wikipedia. But since he had his Super-Super-Mario powers he got away with it and maybe even influence a couple (thankfully only a couple) of his more gullible colleagues.
During this case he had to be reprimanded and corrected several times which unfortunately also had the effect of myself or others “arguing with the Committee”. I actually do think he was purposeful in that pursuit – he knew that either I had to let his deceitful summaries of “evidence” stand, or try to raise objections which would make me look “argumentative”. If this was indeed his intent, then this speaks to his general character; it’s not just a question of incompetence or even pettiness driven by sub-conscious imagined grievances and insecurities, but rather straight forward indication of dishonesty and unsuitability to, well, to any project based on community trust.
I should also say that I don’t think my perceptions of him are too off the mark. During the case I inquired of some of the other Arbs of what they thought of Wugapodes’ behavior. Privately, they told me that they had concerns as well and that I should raise them. However, they were unwilling to speak up about it publicly (insert standard rant about the general spinelessness and cowardice of Wikipedia administrators when it comes to the behavior of their fellow admins here) and that again left me in the “damned if you do damned if you don’t” position.(asterisk)
I’ll give an outline of Wugapodes actions in another comment. Here I simply hope to articulate in general terms why I think such a manipulative, dishonest and petty individual really has no business not just on the Committee but really being an admin or even editing Wikipedia in general.
(asterisk) I want to be clear that I am NOT referring here to statements made by Newyorkbrad or Drmies or several other former-Arbs who did in fact speak up publicly for which they should be commended. The comment above is strictly referring to SOME of the members of the 2022 Committee.
If true, they are the making of a huge scandal that could bring down Wikipedia.
But when it comes to Wikipediocracy, we have been down this road before.
Proof, or shut the fuck up. You absolute pussies.
The mere fact Wikipediocracy is even hosting such incredibly serious if not inflammatory (but ultimately pointless*) accusations in their election thread during the election, means it is time for everyone in Wikipedia to get off the fence and tell us whether Arbitrators should be active members of that den of scum at all, and if so, whether they will ever make sure that Wikipedia editors are held accountable for what they post there.
Do not be afraid. Just because Beeblebrox, the Arbitrator who literally put the "we" in Wikipedia+Wikipediocracy (and was not corrected by their staff) filed a Case against Lourdes for raising this exact issue, doesn't mean he will bring the full force of the Committee down on you either. He is standing down anyway, so fuck him.
* It is virtually guaranteed Wugapodes is going to win a seat. He would have to finish last or poll below 50% not to. And the content of that post can only harm, not help, any future appeal to an ArbCom with Wugapodes as the expert witness on it regarding Marek's capacity for reflection and rehabilitation
