Tamzin RfA

[Trismic]

Don't be surprised if some posts disappear. Maybe some posters, too...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1085384686

[egg]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1085384686

'''Oppose''' Well, the behavior speaks for itself here, doesn't it? Like [[User:ARoseWolf]], I recognize that there are emotional dimensions to writing an encyclopedia.

Yes, there probably are "emotional dimensions" to creating a fake identity and interacting with minors, right Rose?

[Tarc]

I'm not so sure. While her primary interests in mainspace are war, explosions, terrorism, assassinations, and the like, she does seem to have an interest in transgender issues as well.

Not saying it isn't an interest or focus area, but dropping a "but actually" into the conversation here is just a deflection move, when you don't want to address the rest of what was said.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1085384686

Who? Some puttering wikignome, who's going to intimidate a nobody over their RfA vote? Not passing the smell test.

[orangepi]

There is enough heat that I doubt any bureaucrat will want to close this unilaterally.

[Vigilant]

There's an awful lot of stupidity on the talk page as well.

To be fair, it's much less than half. In the 2020 United States presidential election, 74,216,154 people voted for Donald Trump. The 2020 United States census recorded a population of 331,449,281, meaning that about 22.36% of the United States population voted for Donald Trump. -- Tavix (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Pretty sure not all 331M are eligible to vote...

Tamzin wrote above: "I think that avowed, continuing support for Donald Trump constitutes support for an oppressive regime, and thus should be disqualifying for the same reasons discussed in Point 1." Noel S McFerran (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

An admin who supports an oppressive regime does not uphold the collaborative and free values of Wikipedia. I see no issue with the candidate's assessment. casualdejekyll 16:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Not helping...

272 people clapping and cheering for a candidate that advocates desysoping anyone who has a different political view than their own. Quite Kafkaesque. - hako9 (talk) 23:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

or maybe, perhaps, it doesn't affect Tamzin's suitability to be an administrator in their view. casualdejekyll 02:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Someone should have a word with casualdejekyll (T-C-L)

[Vigilant]

Responding to the OP: With respect, saying you are biased against an entire very common school of political thought in English-speaking countries and that would affect the way you would !vote in various proceedings on this site is not a mere display of "personality". Stating that adherents of right-of-centre politics are ""...those I associate with my oppression"" is the hallmark of a partisan editor. Now, Tamzin did issue a "clarification", but it is hard to square the clarification with what they earlier stated. FOARP (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

You may say that, FOARP, but at least in the United States "right-of-centre" politicians are strongly against transgender rights. As a transgender person it makes sense for Tamzin to associate that political group with oppression. The same way I wouldn't vote for someone that sees my race as second-class, I at least see it as understandable Tamzin would not vote for someone that sees people with their gender identity as second-class. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 17:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

This is a slippery slope. What about editors who belong to a religious group that is cool or even hostile to their lifestyle/identity? Islam is very hostile to homosexuality and the broader gender identity issue, as is the Roman Catholic Church. There is not much of a gap between saying no to someone on political grounds and doing so because of their religious beliefs. Saying our political/cultural beliefs can be legitimately cited as grounds to discriminate against other editors is a dangerous precedent. Where does this end? Ad Orientem (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, that's a far deeper question than we're going to answer here. If one person's beliefs (let's say religious) say that an aspect of someone's identity (as you suggested, gender/sexuality is common here) is inherently wrong, and both the beliefs and identity (let's say sexuality) are both "protected attributes," someone is going to lose out. Either we tell the religious person that their beliefs aren't acceptable, or we tell the LGBT person that their identity isn't acceptable. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

GeneralNotability That is a chilling statement. The correct response is to tell everyone involved that they need to check their biases at the door or find another hobby. The day this project endorses discrimination for or against political/religious/cultural beliefs is the day I check out. I came close to doing that once, and for exactly those reasons. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, I think we're largely agreed here, actually - I fully agree that biases should be checked on entry (don't forget your claim ticket!). The problem is when those biases seep through anyway, and how we navigate the balance of respecting both sides when one [culture/political group/religion/identity] says that [other group] [are bad people/are subhuman/are mentally ill/should have bad things happen to them]. And applying moral relativism is a cop-out that prevents us from having meaningful discussion about those beliefs. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Nobody is seriously disputing the rejection of legitimate extremists (Nazis, Communists, racists etc.) But this involves openly affirming hostility to people whose politics are center right, to the point where that would influence their ability to support someone for advanced permissions. That's not just problematic. For someone asking for the mop, that's flatly disqualifying. What's the difference in terms of social attitudes between a Republican and an observant Muslim or Catholic? Sorry, but I tried to give them an off ramp in my question (instead of going straight to oppose). Instead, they basically have been doubling down. I do actually respect them for their honesty and their obvious sincerity. But their biases go way beyond NONAZIS. And as much as I detest Trump and have great difficulty wrapping my brain around the rational among his supporters; the overwhelming majority of his voters are not brown shirted thugs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I guess the message coming out of this RfA is that it's okay to be openly discriminatory based on political affiliation as long as it agrees with Teh Communitah's inherent bias.

That's a pretty stark outlook.

[Vigilant]

Oppose Q14's answers are permanently and totally disqualifying, as WP:AGF is the single most important tool in an admin's toolbox. Jclemens (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

[Bezdomni]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1085384686

Who? Some puttering wikignome, who's going to intimidate a nobody over their RfA vote? Not passing the smell test.

That's not just any puttering wikignome, it's the author of the fine encyclopedic entry Body without organs (T-H-L).

The link above seems to be tied up with some other diffs: 1, 2. The second is a reply to Beeblebrox, so maybe he can give you his impressions of whether T&S is likely involved.

more on unplugging your organs from the desiring machines

The body without organs (or BwO; French: corps sans organes or CsO) is a philosophical concept used in the work of French philosophers Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari.

Il est un non-désir aussi bien que désir. Ce n'est pas du tout une notion, un concept, plutôt une pratique, un ensemble de pratiques. Le corps sans organes, on n'y arrive pas, on ne peut pas y arriver, on n'a jamais fini d'y accéder, c'est une limite. On dit: qu'est-ce que c'est le CsO -- mais on est déjà sur lui, se traînant comme une vermine, tâtonnant comme un aveugle ou courant comme un fou, voyageur du désert et nomade de la steppe.

which has been translated

It is non-desire as well as desire. It is not at all a notion or a concept but a practice, a set of practices. You never reach the Body without Organs, you can't reach it, you are forever attaining it, it is a limit. People ask, So what is this BwO?--But you're already on it, scurrying1 like a vermin, groping like a blind person, or running like a lunatic: desert traveler and nomad of the steppes.

This is obviously why one should not trust primary sources, especially untrustworthy ones like Mille plateaux.

Still, one would think Urve could have mentioned that D&G write that Artaud first declared war on the organs on November 28, 1947 from an asylum in Ivry-sur-Seine. For that point, Deleuze and Guattari's Mille Plateaux is a reliable secondary source.

1 "dragging along" or "crawling" would be a more faithful translation...

[Midsize Jake]

Still, one would think Urve could have mentioned that D&G write that Artaud first declared war on the organs on November 28, 1947 from an asylum in Ivry-sur-Seine. For that point, Deleuze and Guattari's Mille Plateaux is a reliable secondary source.

C'mon, man, everyone knows The War On Organs (T-H-L) happened 40 years ago, and it obviously wasn't won by organs, it was won by synthesizers and fancy digital guitar effects. My Dad's Hammond C3 (with matching Leslie cabinet) was among the casualties.

Adding to the tragedy, our efforts to erect a 400-ft.-tall keyboard and drawstring panel as a monument on the National Mall have been almost completely ignored by Congress.

[Midsize Jake]

Back to the (sort of) topic...

Nobody is seriously disputing the rejection of legitimate extremists (Nazis, Communists, racists etc.) But this involves openly affirming hostility to people whose politics are center right, to the point where that would influence their ability to support someone for advanced permissions...

I guess the message coming out of this RfA is that it's okay to be openly discriminatory based on political affiliation as long as it agrees with Teh Communitah's inherent bias.

That's a pretty stark outlook.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see it. First off, Trump supporters are "legitimate extremists." That doesn't mean they should be silenced, but it does mean they shouldn't be put in charge. And I might add that normalizing Trumpism by calling it "center right" is just more ass-lubricant poured onto the downward slide into fascism. (I guess that's a mixed metaphor, but whatever.)

Secondly, does anyone really think that appeasing Trumpists over RfA standards is going to help Wikipedia, or help anything for that matter? They're certainly not going to stop with this.

Wikipedia survives by encouraging constant ongoing conflict under a veneer of "civility" that keeps it from scaring productive people off before they can be fully inculcated, if not addicted. I accept that this is less true with non-controversial topics, but the fact remains, Trump-appeasement scares productive people off. That's good for the productive people, to the extent that they might find something better to do with their time, but just I don't think Wikipedia can afford it.

[Vigilant]

I'd be fine with a rule that we automatically desysop any Trump supporter. I will never vote for an admin candidate who's right-of-center by American standards

Don't you think that's a bit over the line?

[hako9]

Trump supporters are "legitimate extremists."

You could make a case that Bolsonaro or Erdogan or Le Pen or Xi or Modi are oppressors too. Ban all their supporters until you get a coterie of liberal elites as rule makers and crush all the dissent. Turn the oppressor into the oppressed. Trump supporters are guilty by association. They are vicariously liable. The Orwellian pig has become a man.

[Midsize Jake]

I'd be fine with a rule that we automatically desysop any Trump supporter. I will never vote for an admin candidate who's right-of-center by American standards

Don't you think that's a bit over the line?

That depends on how you interpret "be fine with," doesn't it? If it means "I will join the effort to impose such a rule and fight to impose it," then yes, it's over the line. But if it means what it says, i.e., "I'm not going to quit the site if everyone decides we need that rule," then no.

I'll freely admit it's a tough question though, because I'm not so unreasonable as to believe that Trump supporters/followers are inherently incapable, as individuals, of fairness or decency (at least in cases where Trump and related issues aren't directly involved). I'm not even saying that they actually need that rule — yet. I'm really just saying it's a genuine risk factor, and if Wikipedians recognize it as such, I don't blame them.

[Midsize Jake]

You could make a case that Bolsonaro or Erdogan or Le Pen or Xi or Modi are oppressors too. Ban all their supporters until you get a coterie of liberal elites as rule makers and crush all the dissent. Turn the oppressor into the oppressed. Trump supporters are guilty by association. They are vicariously liable. The Orwellian pig has become a man.

So you literally believe there's no difference between being tolerated and being put in charge?

And have we banned you yet? Uh, no.

[hako9]

You could make a case that Bolsonaro or Erdogan or Le Pen or Xi or Modi are oppressors too. Ban all their supporters until you get a coterie of liberal elites as rule makers and crush all the dissent. Turn the oppressor into the oppressed. Trump supporters are guilty by association. They are vicariously liable. The Orwellian pig has become a man.

So you literally believe there's no difference between being tolerated and being put in charge?

And have we banned you yet? Uh, no.

So you just want people to have different rights based on their political affiliations? Supporters of "oppressive" (whatever that is, according to the definition of the rulers) shall never be put in charge.

Also, thank you for being so merciful so as to not ban me. You truly showed your elitism.

[nableezy]

So you literally believe there's no difference between being tolerated and being put in charge?

Legit can’t understand how people are arguing about banning. Or the cognitive dissonance in saying Tamzin’s views are despicable and so I oppose but Tamzin may not decline to support those whose views she finds despicable. To be fair to the dissonant, she did say she wouldn’t fault anybody for opposing based on that view. Which makes all the pearl clutching that much more absurd.

[Midsize Jake]

So you just want people to have different rights based on their political affiliations? Supporters of "oppressive" (whatever that is, according to the definition of the rulers) shall never be put in charge.

According to the conventional, accepted definition.

FTFY.

[hako9]

but Tamzin may not decline to support those whose views she finds despicable.

Keep adding detergent while you whitewash what she said. Nobody would have given a fck if she said she is anti-Trump. What was problematic was she saying she would favour desysoping a Trump supporter.

[Vigilant]

She said she'd support desysoping anyone who was a Trump supporter or center-right.

It's explicitly because the far right has a stupid culture war against trans people and it's affecting Tamzin.
They said that.

It's not because some Trump supporters are traitors and tried to run a coup against this US.
It's not because of the massive endemic corruption that Trump's administration brought to the White House.
It's not even because of Trump's subservience to Putin and his attempt to destroy NATO.

No, it's because the MAGAt dingbat right has started a culture war that affects Tamzin directly that they decided all Trump supporters should be desysoped.

So very much like the right wing dipshits in that they only pay attention when bad things affect them in a personal way.

[hako9]

You nailed it vigilant . It's the solipsistic victim complex.

[nableezy]

but Tamzin may not decline to support those whose views she finds despicable.

Keep adding detergent while you whitewash what she said. Nobody would have given a fck if she said she is anti-Trump. What was problematic was she saying she would favour desysoping a Trump supporter.

Good thing this is the internet where things are written in ink.

I'd be fine with a rule that we automatically desysop any Trump supporter

But, I want to emphasize, this is a view about tending not to support. I've never opposed an RfA based on someone being right-of-U.S.-center, and don't intend to. ... As to the latter, let me be clear. This isn't about conservatives. It isn't about Republicans. It isn't about people who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 or 2020. It is about people who '''continue to support him''' after he spent months trying to undermine the outcome of a free and fair election and his supporters then invaded the hallowed center of our democracy in an overt attempt to unlawfully overturn that election's result and impose an unelected head of state.

Being unopposed to a rule that desysops somebody in favor of a coup and advocating in favor of said desysoping are two different things. And even if she were, ah well. I too think fascists should not be in a position of power on Wikipedia. Hopefully not in the United States again, but my vote counts for a bit more on Wikipedia than it does in real life.

She said she'd support desysoping anyone who was a Trump supporter or center-right.

Vig, I've been a fan of your ability to distill a barrel of horseshit in to something understandable, but no she did not. She never once said anything about desysoping anybody for being center-right. She said she would not vote for their RFA.

[hako9]

From link

Obama approved the use of 563 drone strikes that killed approximately 3,797 people. In fact, Obama authorized 54 drone strikes alone in Pakistan during his first year in office. One of the first CIA drone strikes under President Obama was at a funeral, murdering as many as 41 Pakistani civilians. The following year, Obama led 128 CIA drone strikes in Pakistan that killed at least 89 civilians. Just two years into his presidency, it was clear that the “hope” that President Obama offered during his 2008 campaign could not escape U.S. imperialism.

The drone operations extended to Somalia and Yemen in 2010 and 2011, resulting in more destructive results. Under the belief they were targeting al-Qaida, President Obama’s first strike on Yemen killed 55 people including 21 children, 10 of which were under the age of five. Additionally, 12 women, five of them pregnant, were also among those who were murdered in this strike.

Would people roll out the red carpet for a candidate saying Obama is an oppressor and so his supporters must be desysoped?

[extcord]

You guys should learn how to read someday.

[Tarc]

You could make a case that Bolsonaro or Erdogan or Le Pen or Xi or Modi are oppressors too. Ban all their supporters until you get a coterie of liberal elites as rule makers and crush all the dissent.

Buddy, the Wikipedia and other social circles already do this. Day in and day out. Tamzin was just a fucking moron for saying the quiet part out loud.

[Vigilant]

She said she'd support desysoping anyone who was a Trump supporter or center-right.

Vig, I've been a fan of your ability to distill a barrel of horseshit in to something understandable, but no she did not. She never once said anything about desysoping anybody for being center-right. She said she would not vote for their RFA.

What they said, "I'd be fine with a rule that we automatically desysop any Trump supporter. I will never vote for an admin candidate who's right-of-center by American standards."

[Vigilant]

You could make a case that Bolsonaro or Erdogan or Le Pen or Xi or Modi are oppressors too. Ban all their supporters until you get a coterie of liberal elites as rule makers and crush all the dissent.

Buddy, the Wikipedia and other social circles already do this. Day in and day out. Tamzin was just a fucking moron for saying the quiet part out loud.

This may actually be right.

It's certainly the prevailing view of the right about en.wp.

[Bezdomni]

For some recent historical perspective, Floquenbeam was promoted (back) to admin with 116 opposes after a crat-chat, RexxS was too -- with only 92 opposes (the bottom range for a crat-chat having been specially extended down to 64%).

Floquenbeam still hasn't been desysopped, but RexxS has been.

[Trismic]

Damn it, Scorpion

Add: your rationale, as TNT has already pointed out, gives the crats reason to dismiss outright.

[Scorpions13256]

Sorry. That is just how I feel.

[Beeblebrox]

2 hours to go and it has slid down into the high end of the discretionary range, so it sure looks like it will go to 'crat chat. This should be interesting.

[Trismic]

2 hours to go and it has slid down into the high end of the discretionary range, so it sure looks like it will go to 'crat chat. This should be interesting.

What happened the last time a crat chat resulted in promotion?

[Beeblebrox]

2 hours to go and it has slid down into the high end of the discretionary range, so it sure looks like it will go to 'crat chat. This should be interesting.

What happened the last time a crat chat resulted in promotion?

That might've been Rexxs, which didn't end well, but I don't feel like this is quite the same situation. Final numbers there were 164/92. That's actually just below the automatic fail threshold. The 'crat chat also reflects the idea of giving less weight to some who opposed because the nom was on April Fools day.

We're at a solid 3-1 in support here unless like 50 more oppose come in in the next 90 minutes.

[Trismic]

That might've been Rexxs, which didn't end well, but I don't feel like this is quite the same situation. Final numbers there were 164/92. That's actually just below the automatic fail threshold. We're at a solid 3-1 in support here unless like 50 more oppose come in in the next 90 minutes.

At the rate people have been showing up to oppose over the past 90 minutes, I think we’ll be closer to that point than we are now.

[redbaron]

2 hours to go and it has slid down into the high end of the discretionary range, so it sure looks like it will go to 'crat chat. This should be interesting.

What happened the last time a crat chat resulted in promotion?

The most recent crat chat is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ucrat_chat (now Moneytrees (T-C-L), who I believe has done a fine job as admin).

[Vigilant]

Support Mostly here to cancel out 1/3 of an oppose, most of which seem silly to me. For example, Jclemens' invocation of AGF seems completely besides the point, Cullen328 blows Tamzin's personal choice to withhold a support vote (which is by no means owed) quite out of proportion, many people seem to be missing the "in many cases" or otherwise not reading with attention... Most of these opposes I cannot see as making a thoughtful evaluation of the candidate - I can only see them as making a statement. What matters is, would the candidate be a good admin, using the tools with due consideration and willing to reflect and take feedback &cetera, and I think so. PJvanMill)talk( 20:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Glad you really thought that through.

Why isn't there a brigade of people badgering that guy about his support?

[Vigilant]

User:Tickle me, if we're going to hell in a handbasket, I appreciate you still being here and hope you'll be here to the bitter end. However, some political orientations are important, as the support for Wikipedia:No Nazis has shown. And as I have argued earlier, we would not want someone who cannot seperate reality from fiction, and gossip from reliable sourcing, to be in a position of judging matters and settling disputes involving the more difficult matters in, for instance, arbitration. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah.

Glad that never happened.

*whew*

[Tarc]

At the rate people have been showing up to oppose over the past 90 minutes, I think we’ll be closer to that point than we are now.

In the last 24h, there have been 38 supports, 38 opposes, and 3 neutrals. Even Steven.

[Beeblebrox]

2 hours to go and it has slid down into the high end of the discretionary range, so it sure looks like it will go to 'crat chat. This should be interesting.

What happened the last time a crat chat resulted in promotion?

The most recent crat chat is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ucrat_chat (now Moneytrees (T-C-L), who I believe has done a fine job as admin).

Ah, forgot about that one, right in the middle of the discretionary range. Seems like the main concern there was lack of experience.

[Fender]

Down to 75%. Is that crat chat territory?

[Jim]

Down to 75%. Is that crat chat territory?

Well, it's 75.5% right now, which is technically above the "range", but I think it would probably quite brave of a crat to just close that as successful without any sort of chat.

The relevant bit of WP:RFA says:

This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass. In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process.

Of course, there is an hour left, and its currently becoming a bit farcical, with people withdrawing/changing votes willy-nilly, so where the numbers end up is still unclear.

[MrErnie]

Easy pass, unless a secret right wing crat closes it.

[Trismic]

Of course, there is an hour left, and its currently becoming a bit farcical, with people withdrawing/changing votes willy-nilly, so where the numbers end up is still unclear.

The last minute vote changing is pretty chilling, suggestive at the very least of some kind of intimidation.

[Midsize Jake]

It's not because some Trump supporters are traitors and tried to run a coup against this US.
It's not because of the massive endemic corruption that Trump's administration brought to the White House.
It's not even because of Trump's subservience to Putin and his attempt to destroy NATO.

No, it's because the MAGAt dingbat right has started a culture war that affects Tamzin directly that they decided all Trump supporters should be desysoped.

Hmm....

While I don't really blame Tamzin for having a "personal" justification for their position on RfA supports, this point of yours is v.important because it leads to what I see as the essential problem here, which is that Tamzin has been using the wrong argument all along when referring to "oppressive regimes" and what-not. It's a non-contextual argument — they should be saying "this is a problem for Wikipedia," but instead it's like they're saying "this is a problem for me."

What I mean is, the common perception (at least among the majority, who dislike Trump) is that in order to be a "Trump supporter" you have to "buy in" to a fairly large set of provably false assertions and, well, outright lies. The "Big Lie" about the 2020 election is the most obvious one, but there are dozens of others. So if you're willing to buy in to a large set of provably false assertions, why should you be trusted to help administer a website that's (supposedly) devoted to providing factual reference information?

I understand that the counterargument is likely to be something like, "ehh, we're not saying the election definitely was stolen, we just think there should be an investigation," or something like that. But putting aside the fact that there have been investigations and all of them have shown conclusively that the Big Lie is just that, would that position be good enough for Trump himself? No, absolutely not. And that means pressure is being applied to the person holding that position to accept the falsehood as truth.

Needless to say, this is what Wikipedia should not want in their administrative corps: People who are under outside pressure (including "social pressure") to accept falsehoods as fact. Personally, I don't see it as any different from paid editing on behalf of a government or corporation — if anything, it's significantly worse, because most governments and corporations are, more often than not, trying to promote verifiable facts when they pay (or otherwise compel) people to make WP edits. Not the case with Trump.

[Captain Occam]

The last minute vote changing is pretty chilling, suggestive at the very least of some kind of intimidation.

Whatever intimidation is happening, it's only happening one one direction. None of the support voters are changing their votes at the last minute; that's only being done by those who voted oppose.

[Trismic]

The last minute vote changing is pretty chilling, suggestive at the very least of some kind of intimidation.

Whatever intimidation is happening, it's only happening one one direction. None of the support voters are changing their votes at the last minute; that's only being done by those who voted oppose.

Exactly.

[arkon]

You could make a case that Bolsonaro or Erdogan or Le Pen or Xi or Modi are oppressors too. Ban all their supporters until you get a coterie of liberal elites as rule makers and crush all the dissent.

Buddy, the Wikipedia and other social circles already do this. Day in and day out. Tamzin was just a fucking moron for saying the quiet part out loud.

This sums the whole thing up I think. Also, is there any cult less able to achieve whatever their goal may be on wikipedia than Trumpers?

[Scorpions13256]

When was the last time a crat chat closed as unsuccessful?

[Ansh666]

When was the last time a crat chat closed as unsuccessful?

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jbhunley/Bureaucrat chat (T-H-L), which we had quite a lot of fun with here.

There's a whole list at Wikipedia:Bureaucrat discussion (T-H-L).

[Vigilant]

The following discussion is preserved as a request for adminship that has been placed on hold by a bureaucrat pending a decision as to the outcome. Please do not modify the text. The result of the discussion will be posted soon.

[Trismic]

The following discussion is preserved as a request for adminship that has been placed on hold by a bureaucrat pending a decision as to the outcome. Please do not modify the text. The result of the discussion will be posted soon.

Agh you beat me. Time for some OT fun