Tamzin RfA

[Vigilant]

Oh no! Someone dilligent sleuth has uncovered the mental illness that I disclose on a page linked to in my acceptance statement, a page which has received over 1,000 views since the RfA started?

This is truly too much to bare. I shall RtV in shame immediately.

I expect we're going to get a lot of comedy rhodium out of your adminship in the long run.

[Parabola]

she got one good crack off on you already, so hell, agreed vigilant.


you see? peace is possible in our time

[WanderingWanda]

It's the solipsistic victim complex.

they only pay attention when bad things affect them in a personal way.

I have a memory from the 90s of some conservative radio airhead ranting and raving about how selfish gay people were because they marched for gay rights. Why do they only march for *gay* rights? Why don't they march for non-gay stuff too, eh? Those gays: so selfish! So solipsistic!

Anyway perhaps it's not too surprising that the level of discourse on this site is about equal to 90s conservative talk radio

[Tamzin, reluctantly]

It’ll be a fun Arb case when it happens. Not if. When.

Lol. What do you envision being the parameters of such a case, Architect?

[Midsize Jake]

I have a memory from the 90s of some conservative radio airhead ranting and raving about how selfish gay people were because they marched for gay rights. Why do they only march for *gay* rights? Why don't they march for non-gay stuff too, eh? Those gays: so selfish! So solipsistic!

It's not really the best analogy though, now is it?

[Parabola]

I have a memory from the 90s of some conservative radio airhead ranting and raving about how selfish gay people were because they marched for gay rights. Why do they only march for *gay* rights? Why don't they march for non-gay stuff too, eh? Those gays: so selfish! So solipsistic!

It's not really the best analogy though, now is it?

Well, yeah, the conservative radio host is at least supporting their right to support gay rights.

[Midsize Jake]

Well, yeah, the conservative radio host is at least supporting their right to support gay rights.

First off, no conservative "radio host" in the 90s or any other decade would have actually "supported" gay rights. Anyone who thinks otherwise clearly wasn't listening to those "radio hosts," at least not directly. Second, do you really think anyone here doesn't support LGBT rights? I'd say that's not only wrong, it's absurd. (I mean, even Proabivouac over on WikipediaSucks supports gay rights to some extent; it's only trans people whom he hates indiscriminately.)

People in Pride marches and other demonstrations were, and still are, demanding things like the right to not be summarily fired over their identities and/or lifestyle choices, or to not be denied housing or other public benefits because of them, or to not have crimes committed against them routinely ignored by law enforcement. Among many other things. Nobody here is against them having any of those rights.

This is a case of someone saying they should have the right to refrain from voting "Support" in a future Wikipedia RfA for the sole reason that the hypothetical RfA candidate follows and supports a politician, along with his political party, who clearly hate them. And we both agree that they should have that right, no?

But it seems a handful of people instead agree with those who, though not necessarily members of that aforementioned political party, believe Wikipedia must somehow be "above politics" — and that therefore Wikipedia shouldn't have administrators who won't (or can't) evaluate these people as individuals, rather than (as they see it) lump them all into a monolithic group for whom guilt is shared collectively.

Call me crazy, but I think the question of whether or not these people are wrong, much less acting with malice, is essentially focused on just how monolithic we think that group — i.e., Trumpists — really is. And while I personally still agree with you, the fact is, if anything that group is likely to be significantly less monolithic than 90s right-wing radio hosts.

[Parabola]

Oh, no no no, we're absolutely in agreement, apologies. My post was a whiff of a joke, it turns out.

And yeah, I think you're generally right that the conservative elements, and the 'centrists' buying the watered down swill-conservatism, are a much more fractious bunch. You can see different elements of them in the RFA even. The younger alt-rightish guys, the ancient tories, the guys who love the saying about how you're a democrat with a heart in college but a republican with a brain as an adult, the one actual self described monarchist. If they had actually moved with purpose, they might've been successful.

Frankly, I think the fact that you haven't seen an organized move on Wikipedia by the Thiel-funded side of conservatism shows how little they think of the site. That or they fundamentally don't understand how you'd even begin to organize that on the sort of strange, idiosyncratic platform it represents. The closest anyone got was, ironically, a couple of the gamergate guys who really tried very hard to be Serious Wikipedia Users on the road to adminship, but they all flamed out. Couldn't stop themselves from letting the bit go every now and then.

[Tamzin, reluctantly]

But it seems a handful of people instead agree with those who, though not necessarily members of that aforementioned political party, believe Wikipedia must somehow be "above politics"

Oh my, what big hands you have, grandma. (Insert obligatory played-out and factually incorrect "small hands" joke that is the epitome of why moderates get sick of people who criticize Trump.)

"Above politics" is a funny thing, though. 468 commenters seemed to be fine with the prominent "Fuck this war" on my userpage, even though I've been very open about doing content work inspired by that sentiment, whereas I barely edit at all about Trump. (Not that in either case I've ever violated NPOV. Per MJL, my content edits about Trump probably skew slightly in his favor, and half my work on Russia–Ukraine topics is weeding out potential pro-Ukrainian propaganda (see A30 ¶1).) Overall, globally, I'd venture "Fuck this war" is a more controversial statement than the one at issue. Perhaps Yngvadottir is right about U.S.-centrism. (This comment is not an endorsement of the WMF.)

[Beefsoup]

But it seems a handful of people instead agree with those who, though not necessarily members of that aforementioned political party, believe Wikipedia must somehow be "above politics"

468 commenters seemed to be fine with the prominent "Fuck this war" on my userpage

And if you had a message on your userpage that said "Fuck Trump", that would still be significantly less disqualifying than "Fuck Trump and desysop all of his supporters".

[Tamzin, reluctantly]

Really? Personally I'd be quite hesitant to vote for a candidate who had "Fuck Trump" on their userpage.

[Ansh666]

I personally don't think there's anything particularly political about "fuck war" or "fuck this war" or any other variations thereof. The vast majority of people of all spectra would agree that war is bad (I'd hope at least). Besides, there's nothing in that statement that is explicitly about Wikipedia per se.

I also would be much more put off by someone who had "Fuck Trump" or other similar partisan messaging on their userpage, yes.

[Boing! said Zebedee]

..."Fuck Trump"...

From a UK perspective, Trump is unique in the love/hate aspect. I know people here who thought Trump was exactly what the USA needed when he became President, but who now revile him. I get the same feeling from people here across the political spectrum, including those I know who are strongly conservative in nature. They don't hate Trump because of right/left politics, they hate him because he turned out to be a persistent (and incompetent) liar, an extreme narcisist, and an active fighter against democracy. Despising Donald Trump, among the people I know in the UK at least, is very much not a party political stance.

[Ritchie333]

Really? Personally I'd be quite hesitant to vote for a candidate who had "Fuck Trump" on their userpage.

I guess I"m lucky that I filed an RfA when Trump was merely an eccentric game show host.

I get the same feeling from people here across the political spectrum, including those I know who are strongly conservative in nature. They don't hate Trump because of right/left politics, they hate him because he turned out to be a persistent (and incompetent) liar, an extreme narcisist, and an active fighter against democracy.

Exactly this. I didn't vote for Brexit, but at least I can have conversations with people about the other side of the argument, and read Martin Baxter's blog, who explains in very calm, rational and polite terms why Brexit could work in theory. (TLDR - "Why can't we be like Norway?") The best argument I can give nowadays is the implementation by Boris Johnson and Michael Gove is what's a disaster, and Brexiters should be even more up in arms about it as they've been betrayed.

[Bezdomni]

Now closed as successful. As Dweller noted, a surprising number of people voted. There seemed to be an unusually strong desire to get Tamzin promoted (in some quarters) both before and after the controversy broke out (this is my opinion). Though several crats mentioned that they (Tamzin) probably shouldn't act in AP2 enforcement right away, no mention of this was made in the close.

ed. added what's in blue above

[Captain Spalding]

Now watch as this crat decision blows up in their faces sometime between now and the 2024 US Presidential elections.

[extcord]

Now watch as this crat decision blows up in their faces sometime between now and the 2024 US Presidential elections.

Blame the voters, not the crats. Unless you're suggesting they should supervote.

---

Mod note: Posts about courts split off to viewtopic.php?f=4&t=12584

[WanderingWanda]

I have a memory from the 90s of some conservative radio airhead ranting and raving about how selfish gay people were because they marched for gay rights. Why do they only march for *gay* rights? Why don't they march for non-gay stuff too, eh? Those gays: so selfish! So solipsistic!

It's not really the best analogy though, now is it?

Well, my point was that I think it's gross to say that a queer person is selfish, or "solipsistic", for caring about anti-queer prejudice. That's all.


I will add, incidentally, that I probably don't agree with Tamzin that someone being pro-Trump, or pro-Stalin, or whatever, is "disqualifying" in an admin. I would find someone being pro-Hitler a bridge too far, though. (My reasoning behind that position is: fuck Nazis)

[Giraffe Stapler]

I will add, incidentally, that I probably don't agree with Tamzin that someone being pro-Trump, or pro-Stalin, or whatever, is "disqualifying" in an admin. I would find someone being pro-Hitler a bridge too far, though. (My reasoning behind that position is: fuck Nazis)

I'm not trying to start an argument, but you would be ok with a pro-Stalin editor but not a pro-Hitler one? Is that because being pro-Hitler is strongly associated with White Supremacy, antisemitism, and neo-Nazism, but neo-Stalinism doesn't have the same associations?

[hako9]

Well, my point was that I think it's gross to say that a queer person is selfish, or "solipsistic", for caring about anti-queer prejudice. That's all.

That's not why I used that word for. Trump was, in her opinion, oppressive to lgbt community. Obama/Biden, in my opinion, were oppressive to say, Yemeni people, for droning them, or arming Saudis. Trump's oppression directly affects you. Obama/Biden's oppression doesn't affect you directly. So if you only deem Trumpers as unfit of morality, than you are solipsistic in your worldview.

[Lyallpuri]

Well, my point was that I think it's gross to say that a queer person is selfish, or "solipsistic", for caring about anti-queer prejudice. That's all.

That's not why I used that word for. Trump was, in her opinion, oppressive to lgbt community. Obama/Biden, in my opinion, were oppressive to say, Yemeni people, for droning them, or arming Saudis. Trump's oppression directly affects you. Obama/Biden's oppression doesn't affect you directly. So if you only deem Trumpers as unfit of morality, than you are solipsistic in your worldview.

Incidentally, this was one major point of contention amongst swing voters within the American Muslim community: in what way was supporting Clinton and/or Biden, who were in charge of various NATO operations in Muslim countries, better than voting for Trump, who professed hate against Muslims in the US, and was it not solipsistic to care only about the latter but not the former? (It should be noted, mind you, that Trump himself played a major role in the conflict in Yemen, and his first overseas trip was to sign an agreement on weapons sales to Riyadh.)

This led to many switching from having voted for Bernie (who seemed to be supported by the vast majority of Muslims) in the primaries to Trump in the presidential election, especially in 2020.

[Captain Occam]

I'm not trying to start an argument, but you would be ok with a pro-Stalin editor but not a pro-Hitler one? Is that because being pro-Hitler is strongly associated with White Supremacy, antisemitism, and neo-Nazism, but neo-Stalinism doesn't have the same associations?

I think being pro-Stalin is associated with being pro-Putin, since Putin has revived several of Stalin's expansionist policies, including Stalin's aggression towards Ukraine.

[EricBarbour]

Tamzin, dear......

.....are you Film Threat writer Phil Hall?

Because he was notorious for sockpuppeting on Wikipedia. And I have a note that you were suspected of being him some years ago, under the usernames Francophonie&Androphilie and PinkAmpersand.

[Parabola]

I will add, incidentally, that I probably don't agree with Tamzin that someone being pro-Trump, or pro-Stalin, or whatever, is "disqualifying" in an admin. I would find someone being pro-Hitler a bridge too far, though. (My reasoning behind that position is: fuck Nazis)

I'm not trying to start an argument, but you would be ok with a pro-Stalin editor but not a pro-Hitler one? Is that because being pro-Hitler is strongly associated with White Supremacy, antisemitism, and neo-Nazism, but neo-Stalinism doesn't have the same associations?

How many stalinist hate groups would you say run around compared to neo-nazis

[hako9]

Speaking of Stalin...


https://twitter.com/ComradeKimDawn/stat ... GWtow&s=19

[Parabola]

Speaking of Stalin...


https://twitter.com/ComradeKimDawn/stat ... GWtow&s=19

fully legalized in 1920, reduced infant mortality by 50% by 1925

funny how that works. how far we've come

[WanderingWanda]

you would be ok with a pro-Stalin editor but not a pro-Hitler one?

It depends what you mean by "be ok with", but I'm actually part of a Discord group with a Stalinist tankie. Do I think that's gross? Yes. Do I push back against his views? Sure. But, well, I haven't left the group! And I imagine I would leave if people were allowed to spout Nazi shit. So, apparently there's a line and apparently tankie shit is on one side and Nazi shit is on the other. Is that rational?

[hako9]

In the words of Winston Churchill, "I will not pretend that, if I had to choose between Communism and Nazi-ism, I would choose Communism."

[Tamzin, reluctantly]

Tamzin, dear......

.....are you Film Threat writer Phil Hall?

Because he was notorious for sockpuppeting on Wikipedia. And I have a note that you were suspected of being him some years ago, under the usernames Francophonie&Androphilie and PinkAmpersand.

lol

---

Mod note: lol indeed. I think we're done here. Topic locked.