User talk:Shoemaker's Holiday

Goodbye, Wikipedia. The corruption of Arbcom, as amply set out in the recent e-mail exchange I had with them, where promises were made, broken, and they literally used me being upset at their actions as an excuse to refuse to actually review those actions. Further, gross favouritism - consider cases like GianoII, who knows one of the Arbcom, and so was protected for years, versus me making a statement that requires some straining to see as a violation in the first place, and getting a block of the full length and a nasty message. Evidently, if you do what they explicitly permit you to do in their decision, then politely comment when someone tries to use your work in a gambit, that's blockable.

I had been gone for five months. I had only returned for a week. Arbcom has been corrupt at the least since the Matthew Hoffman case - the one so egregious they were forced, eventually, to make a public statement admitting wrongdoing. They have clearly learned nothing.

Wikipedia is not worth my or your time. Shoemaker's Holiday talk 14:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But Arbcom is not Wikipedia! Although I can really empathize if people at the top are really not ideal. One may feel unfairly targeted, unsafe, unmotivated. Not saying that's necessarily the case with today's Arbcom, 13 years after your comment though. I hope you come back one day. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]