Misplaced Pages

User talk:Floquenbeam: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:35, 20 May 2014 editNcmvocalist (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,127 edits You need to take a break: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 14:36, 20 May 2014 edit undoFloquenbeam (talk | contribs)Administrators38,302 edits You need to take a break: fuck offNext edit →
Line 51: Line 51:


Floquenbeam, I wanted to take a moment to personally address you. Right there is the salient point; personally. Over the years, I have become aware of a number of failings of ArbCom as ''a body''. There are serious issues which plague it to this day. From ] to variable involvement to broken procedures to failure to abide by ArbCom policy; the problems are deep and extensive. I have pointed out these failings on a number of occasions, trying to effect change within the system. Occasionally, I have had some success. I do not feel the problems that plague ArbCom are descendant from a subset of members of ArbCom, or from the personal behavior of ArbCom members even as a whole. As such, rare has the occasion arisen that I have taken issue with any particular member of ArbCom, and most certainly never without specific supporting evidence. Never have I commented on you personally. I did not call your ethics into question nor in any shape or form question your honesty in the sub-thread I started on ]. Allow me an analogy; one can find Congress as a whole to be problematic while still holding a given representative or senator in high regard. In that sub-thread, I felt it had to be made clear that ArbCom was not involved. As I noted, ArbCom acting as a body can have members within it that disagree with a particular action. We see this all the time in case remedies. Had ArbCom acted as a body to contact Kumioko's employer, there is plenty of room for any given member of ArbCom to have opposed the decision. Had ArbCom done so, I certainly would find fault with ArbCom's ethics. I can do so without commenting on any particular member. ArbCom has made it clear both recently and many times in the past that members of the committee can and do act without representing ArbCom. This allows a person to be critical of a person's actions without being critical of ArbCom. Similarly and in reverse, a person can be critical of actions taken by ArbCom without being critical of a particular member of ArbCom. In this case, I am not being critical of ArbCom; I was simply asking for ArbCom to confirm or deny this was a decision taken by ArbCom. I remember , and I do hold you in high regard. All the best, --] (]) 14:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC) Floquenbeam, I wanted to take a moment to personally address you. Right there is the salient point; personally. Over the years, I have become aware of a number of failings of ArbCom as ''a body''. There are serious issues which plague it to this day. From ] to variable involvement to broken procedures to failure to abide by ArbCom policy; the problems are deep and extensive. I have pointed out these failings on a number of occasions, trying to effect change within the system. Occasionally, I have had some success. I do not feel the problems that plague ArbCom are descendant from a subset of members of ArbCom, or from the personal behavior of ArbCom members even as a whole. As such, rare has the occasion arisen that I have taken issue with any particular member of ArbCom, and most certainly never without specific supporting evidence. Never have I commented on you personally. I did not call your ethics into question nor in any shape or form question your honesty in the sub-thread I started on ]. Allow me an analogy; one can find Congress as a whole to be problematic while still holding a given representative or senator in high regard. In that sub-thread, I felt it had to be made clear that ArbCom was not involved. As I noted, ArbCom acting as a body can have members within it that disagree with a particular action. We see this all the time in case remedies. Had ArbCom acted as a body to contact Kumioko's employer, there is plenty of room for any given member of ArbCom to have opposed the decision. Had ArbCom done so, I certainly would find fault with ArbCom's ethics. I can do so without commenting on any particular member. ArbCom has made it clear both recently and many times in the past that members of the committee can and do act without representing ArbCom. This allows a person to be critical of a person's actions without being critical of ArbCom. Similarly and in reverse, a person can be critical of actions taken by ArbCom without being critical of a particular member of ArbCom. In this case, I am not being critical of ArbCom; I was simply asking for ArbCom to confirm or deny this was a decision taken by ArbCom. I remember , and I do hold you in high regard. All the best, --] (]) 14:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

== You need to take a break ==

{{whale}}

Did you think that after making at an arbitration page during your tenure as an arb, removing the unseemly comment with would make everything OK? I think your conduct was extremely poor and you have set a disappointing example for other editors, especially given that you apparently vote on how others behave on this site in the face of difficult situations or comments. Any other editor would likely be blocked for doing what you did, and while I don't believe in forced apology, it's fairly ridiculous that you appear to assume that the backhanded comment was adequate recognition of the issue. If you felt such an extreme urge to convey that sentiment, there's a time and place, and this was not it (even if it is outside the article space). It's pretty fair to raise the question as to whether you should be involved in any aspect of Misplaced Pages for the next few days at the very least. ] (]) 14:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:36, 20 May 2014

Available, sort of, but I'm declaring bankruptcy regarding any email or previous talk page threads prior to today. If you'd like me to get involved again in something I was involved with previously, please (1) consider whether a lazy grump's participation would actually be a good idea, (b) let me know here, and (iii) note that I reserve the right to say "no thanks". --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Notes
  • Normal humans: I'm not online as much as many other admins. You probably should bug another admin if you need something in a hurry.
  • Admins: I usually check in at least a few times a day, but if something is time sensitive, go ahead and undo or change any admin action I've taken without feeling like you have to talk to me first.
  • WP:SOLVED
  • WP:LIGHTBULB
  • WP:VOGONS
  • WP:BEDFELLOWS

Archives


This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Truly involved

Maybe a typo? :-) Fut.Perf. 15:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

How embarrassing. Fixed. Thanks, FP@S. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Remember not, Lord, our offences

Remember not, Lord, our offences - Why am I not surprised? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Because you're observant enough to know what kind of person Scott is? --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't. Didn't happen often that I wasn't, look for the asterisk in the third column (the others are my - rather harmless - counting mistakes), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
ps: I looked myself again, and found eight where I missed. I was learning: 1 in 2014, all the others in 2012. Only one of them is not at least an admin (3), if not bureaucrat (1) or arb (3), what does it tell us? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
ps II: the one applied for being an admin, I didn't support because of the asterisk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Personally vs. A Body

Floquenbeam, I wanted to take a moment to personally address you. Right there is the salient point; personally. Over the years, I have become aware of a number of failings of ArbCom as a body. There are serious issues which plague it to this day. From case naming bias to variable involvement to broken procedures to failure to abide by ArbCom policy; the problems are deep and extensive. I have pointed out these failings on a number of occasions, trying to effect change within the system. Occasionally, I have had some success. I do not feel the problems that plague ArbCom are descendant from a subset of members of ArbCom, or from the personal behavior of ArbCom members even as a whole. As such, rare has the occasion arisen that I have taken issue with any particular member of ArbCom, and most certainly never without specific supporting evidence. Never have I commented on you personally. I did not call your ethics into question nor in any shape or form question your honesty in the sub-thread I started on WT:AC. Allow me an analogy; one can find Congress as a whole to be problematic while still holding a given representative or senator in high regard. In that sub-thread, I felt it had to be made clear that ArbCom was not involved. As I noted, ArbCom acting as a body can have members within it that disagree with a particular action. We see this all the time in case remedies. Had ArbCom acted as a body to contact Kumioko's employer, there is plenty of room for any given member of ArbCom to have opposed the decision. Had ArbCom done so, I certainly would find fault with ArbCom's ethics. I can do so without commenting on any particular member. ArbCom has made it clear both recently and many times in the past that members of the committee can and do act without representing ArbCom. This allows a person to be critical of a person's actions without being critical of ArbCom. Similarly and in reverse, a person can be critical of actions taken by ArbCom without being critical of a particular member of ArbCom. In this case, I am not being critical of ArbCom; I was simply asking for ArbCom to confirm or deny this was a decision taken by ArbCom. I remember this, and I do hold you in high regard. All the best, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)