Wikipediocracy

snowskarlet wrote:Well, just having the current accepted case on Media Viewer RfC could suck the life out of anyone having to dig through it.

I as a reader haven't even managed to make it through the evidence page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... C/Evidence

A hopeless committee with a hopeless case about a hopeless WMF and their related hopeless Wikipedia...

Kumioko wrote:

snowskarlet wrote:Well, just having the current accepted case on Media Viewer RfC could suck the life out of anyone having to dig through it.

I as a reader haven't even managed to make it through the evidence page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... C/Evidence

A hopeless committee with a hopeless case about a hopeless WMF and their related hopeless Wikipedia...

Good point, its not bad enough that this is the absolute worst arbcom ever or that they have absolutely no morale center or purpose to at least guide them but they take cases that there is no hope of winning. With that said I am looking forward to the result of the case, because I am hoping the WMF gives them a resounding F-you, but in reality I believe the Arbcom will simply end the case with some useless bureaucratic banter that doesn't mean anything and doesn't address the problem.

Case update

Thanks to all who submitted evidence. We are currently reviewing the submissions and may follow up with questions over the coming week. I've asked the clerks to extend the workshop closing date to the end of this coming weekend (3 August) so there is more time for proposals to be made and discussed there (I will add a similar note over there). The current plan is to have at least some parts of a draft proposed decision up on the workshop for public comments by Friday, and then make any changes needed and move to voting after the weekend. I'll post another update if things slip from that schedule. Carcharoth (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Vigilant wrote:
Also, I'm not sure why Risker has her tongue buried to the small intestine in the WMF's ass, but she's offered a load of useless tripe as evidence that should get trimmed out by a clerk.

Kumioko wrote:I believe the Arbcom will simply end the case with some useless bureaucratic banter that doesn't mean anything and doesn't address the problem.

enwikibadscience wrote:

Vigilant wrote:
Also, I'm not sure why Risker has her tongue buried to the small intestine in the WMF's ass, but she's offered a load of useless tripe as evidence that should get trimmed out by a clerk.

You read it?

Randy from Boise wrote:As a frequent skimmer of the Wikimedia-l list these days, it does seem that Risker is going out of her way to demonstrate her willingness to carry water for WMF...

TungstenCarbide wrote:

Randy from Boise wrote:As a frequent skimmer of the Wikimedia-l list these days, it does seem that Risker is going out of her way to demonstrate her willingness to carry water for WMF...

hmmm, I wonder what kind of rewards that may bring?

Floquenbeam wrote:Everything. Seeing only bad behavior from everyone involved in almost every case; there were no good guys and bad guys, there were only bad guys with various levels of "bad", so instead of trying to help good guys edit in peace by removing bad guys, you had to choose which side's bad guys were less bad. The depressing amount of truly disgusting, vile people that ArbCom had to deal with behind the scenes (it really makes no sense to me that this is ArbCom's job, but for some reason it is). The bureaucracy. The depressing dysfunction of the whole system; by the time a conflict gets to ArbCom, it's by definition been allowed to fester for so long that it takes months to figure out what the fuck is going on. The internal dysfunction of the committee. The lack of any apparent intelligence displayed by 60% of the people commenting at [[WP:ACN]]. The fact that my skill set didn't match what was needed nearly as well as I'd hoped it would. The discovery that there was no opportunity to engage in money-making corruption like other politicians get to do...

But I probably would have kept my promise to stay on, in spite of this, except real life changes caused me to have very very very little time for WP, and I was finding that I had no time to devote to ArbCom, much less to anything else related to WP. Just too many balls in the air. And since I'd promised people I could juggle those balls for two years, it became a very stressful time.

If you're asking because you're curious, I hope that helps explain. If you're asking because you think it's something you'd like to do yourself in the future, I'd not recommend it. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam#top|talk]]) 19:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Michaeldsuarez wrote:An issue for Floquenbeam is that he or she is afraid. I'm not exactly sure how this fear came into being, but Floquenbeam should learn to trust the Wikipedia community with his or her name, even if it hurts him or her a little. Arbitrators such as Newyorkbrad learned to overcome this fear. As long as this fear exists, Floquenbeam will feel the desire to keep secrets from the community (i.e. the fear will prevent Floquenbeam from having complete faith / trust in the community that he or she wishes to serve). As a result, don't expect Floquenbeam to make ArbCom more transparent (he or she says that he or she isn't a "candidate for change" anyway). Hopefully, Floquenbeam will change his or her mind, break free of his or her fears, and share his or her past with the community before the election starts.

Michaeldsuarez wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013/Candidates/Floquenbeam&diff=582200061&oldid=582160880:

Amidst all the silliness there, someone did make an interesting point: I haven't identified the name of my previous account (from 5 years ago) to ArbCom. I provided it to [[User:Alison]] and to [[User:WJBscribe]] during my RFA. The ArbCom mailing list has been leaked in the past, and any email I send there is available to current '''and future''' Arbs, so I can't know who will have access to it in the future. I am not going to provide the name to the whole list. I would be willing, if necessary, to provide it to one of you, and/or to one or two arbs that I trust a lot. Is this necessary for my elegibility? Is it sufficient? --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 13:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

As I've stated above, the main issue that Floquenbeam has is fear and distrust. If he or she doesn't trust the mailing list, then he or she is bound to have secret discussions off the mailing list. Unless Floquenbeam overcomes these fears, he or she could never become the great Arbitrator that he or she could be. He or she doesn't trust the community with information, and he or she doesn't trust the whole of ArbCom with information.

Michaeldsuarez wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Floquenbeam&diff=631790559&oldid=631788421:

Floquenbeam wrote:Everything. Seeing only bad behavior from everyone involved in almost every case; there were no good guys and bad guys, there were only bad guys with various levels of "bad", so instead of trying to help good guys edit in peace by removing bad guys, you had to choose which side's bad guys were less bad. The depressing amount of truly disgusting, vile people that ArbCom had to deal with behind the scenes (it really makes no sense to me that this is ArbCom's job, but for some reason it is). The bureaucracy. The depressing dysfunction of the whole system; by the time a conflict gets to ArbCom, it's by definition been allowed to fester for so long that it takes months to figure out what the fuck is going on. The internal dysfunction of the committee. The lack of any apparent intelligence displayed by 60% of the people commenting at [[WP:ACN]]. The fact that my skill set didn't match what was needed nearly as well as I'd hoped it would. The discovery that there was no opportunity to engage in money-making corruption like other politicians get to do...

But I probably would have kept my promise to stay on, in spite of this, except real life changes caused me to have very very very little time for WP, and I was finding that I had no time to devote to ArbCom, much less to anything else related to WP. Just too many balls in the air. And since I'd promised people I could juggle those balls for two years, it became a very stressful time.

If you're asking because you're curious, I hope that helps explain. If you're asking because you think it's something you'd like to do yourself in the future, I'd not recommend it. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam#top|talk]]) 19:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I told everyone that Floquenbeam didn't have faith in the Wikipedia community:

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=69644#p69644

Michaeldsuarez wrote:An issue for Floquenbeam is that he or she is afraid. I'm not exactly sure how this fear came into being, but Floquenbeam should learn to trust the Wikipedia community with his or her name, even if it hurts him or her a little. Arbitrators such as Newyorkbrad learned to overcome this fear. As long as this fear exists, Floquenbeam will feel the desire to keep secrets from the community (i.e. the fear will prevent Floquenbeam from having complete faith / trust in the community that he or she wishes to serve). As a result, don't expect Floquenbeam to make ArbCom more transparent (he or she says that he or she isn't a "candidate for change" anyway). Hopefully, Floquenbeam will change his or her mind, break free of his or her fears, and share his or her past with the community before the election starts.

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=69697#p69697

Michaeldsuarez wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013/Candidates/Floquenbeam&diff=582200061&oldid=582160880:

Amidst all the silliness there, someone did make an interesting point: I haven't identified the name of my previous account (from 5 years ago) to ArbCom. I provided it to [[User:Alison]] and to [[User:WJBscribe]] during my RFA. The ArbCom mailing list has been leaked in the past, and any email I send there is available to current '''and future''' Arbs, so I can't know who will have access to it in the future. I am not going to provide the name to the whole list. I would be willing, if necessary, to provide it to one of you, and/or to one or two arbs that I trust a lot. Is this necessary for my elegibility? Is it sufficient? --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 13:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

As I've stated above, the main issue that Floquenbeam has is fear and distrust. If he or she doesn't trust the mailing list, then he or she is bound to have secret discussions off the mailing list. Unless Floquenbeam overcomes these fears, he or she could never become the great Arbitrator that he or she could be. He or she doesn't trust the community with information, and he or she doesn't trust the whole of ArbCom with information.

Yet no one listened to me. An Arbitrator with little faith in the community would always become disillusioned enough to quit. A real shame. Asides from Floquenbeam's distrust of people and his or her insistence on secrecy, I really liked him or her.

Casliber wrote:"faith" is a pretty black/white word though. I don't have "faith" at all in the personal values of Michael Jackson or (probably) Pete Townshend but it doesn't stop me humming along in the car when a song I like that they wrote comes on....

Michaeldsuarez wrote:

Casliber wrote:"faith" is a pretty black/white word though. I don't have "faith" at all in the personal values of Michael Jackson or (probably) Pete Townshend but it doesn't stop me humming along in the car when a song I like that they wrote comes on....

I guess that you're right. Floquenbeam is still involved with Wikipedia and is proposing changes, so I guess that there's still something [good?] about Wikipedia that keeps him or her "humming along", even if Floquenbeam sees more bad than good.