Tamzin RfA
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2022 4:47 am
& 
& 
but not an admin. That could be a good story (or not).
Page 1 of 6
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2022 6:22 pm
Question 7 is curious & fun: as Tamzin, she's still a property creator 
& 
& 
but not an admin.
That could be a good story (or not).
& & but not an admin. That could be a good story (or not).
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2022 2:24 am
Idk, but I certainly doubt that Kudpung will be making many nominations going forward.
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2022 4:47 pm
Well, this looks certain to sail through. 5 days to go, 179 supports, only 3 opposes, none of which are compelling.
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2022 5:38 pm
Well, she thinks everyone on the political right is a fascist and unsuitable for adminship, so she clearly fits right in with the rest of the admin corps and the community at large in that respect.
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2022 7:07 pm
Could you maybe point out where you're getting that from?
EDIT: I assume it is in reference to this question:
14. Could you please elaborate on this comment which you made at another RfA, parts of which concern me. To be clear your objection to true political extremists is not in itself an issue, and would likely be a deal breaker for me as well. But do you believe that disqualifying political extremism exists only on the far right (Fascists), or does this also include Communists (Stalinists and the like)? In particular I am concerned with your statement that anyone whose politics are right of center could not gain your support at RfA and you expressed comfort with desysopping anyone who supported former president Trump. Are these still your views? Thank you in advance for your reply.
A: So, to take that as three sub-questions:
Support of oppressive regimes should be disqualifying, period. The most common form of that that we see on enwiki is support of far-right oppressive regimes, and that's what was being discussed in that conversation, but certainly the left has its own problems in that regard, including, yes, apologism for the crimes against humanity committed by Stalin, Mao, and other leftists. That ought to be disqualifying too.
I shouldn't have said I would never vote for a right-of-center admin candidate. That was hyperbole during a heated conversation, but that's no excuse. What I was trying to convey is that that is something that would make me tend against supporting. I don't think it's unreasonable to judge someone's fitness for a position of trust based on one's impression of the reasonableness (or lack thereof) of their political views. That's an equal-opportunity thing: If someone concludes that, from their perspective, my political views (to the extent I've ever discussed those publicly) call my judgment into question, then I don't fault them for opposing or declining to support on that basis. Political views are one of the best measures of someone's character, and should not be off-limits in assessing people. At the same time, it should not be the only consideration, definitely not a litmus test, unless someone falls into the groups discussed in Point 1.
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. Without turning this into a polemic, see generally the aftermath of the 2020 election and the events of January 6th, 2021. Of course, that's entirely hypothetical; I do not expect the community or ArbCom to ever actually impose such a test on administrators, and have no intention to propose one myself.
I think that that comment generated more heat than light, and if I could do it over I wouldn't have phrased it the way that I did. That thread is probably the most intense argument I've gotten into since my return to editing in October of 2020, and I'd just as soon not wind up in that position again. I do better when I'm making people happy, not angry.
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2022 7:31 pm
The not supporting anyone right-of-center for RfA isn't great, but I don't think it's necessarily disqualifying. The big issues I see are what actually counts as right of center, versus center, and will they keep their mop out of political stuff. If they'll keep their mop out of the political arena, then I don't even care where they think right of center starts.
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2022 8:48 pm
I am the one responsible for the recent drama. I still have no intention of opposing. Had I been opposed to her becoming an administrator, I would have voted oppose without consulting anybody. Furthermore, I would have been armed with the diff in question.
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2022 8:57 pm
I supported having read that diff, and the questions and such. I'm more disturbed at the backlash from others for opposing because of it, than what she said. Especially since she said in her answer about it
The support ratio is still 25 to 1, and I think the outrage of people opposing is probably doing more harm than good.If someone concludes that, from their perspective, my political views (to the extent I've ever discussed those publicly) call my judgment into question, then I don't fault them for opposing or declining to support on that basis.
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2022 2:59 am
Somehow people are taking an opposition to people supporting what they view as fascist/oppressive regimes to being admins to actions taken against those people either as admins or editors. Nowhere does Tamzin ever say somebody who supports Trump should be sanctioned, or that they should be silenced and not allowed to edit. Nowhere is there any indication that this view would impact her administrative actions. But thinking that somebody who is in favor of unbridled power being used capriciously maybe shouldnt be given any extra power on the 7th most visited website on the planet is being transformed in to she'll block all the Trumpistas. And nobody is considering why somebody whose very being makes them a target of abuse from those fascist/oppressive regimes might find such views disqualifying for gaining additional power. How many people in the West right now would consider public support for Putin to be disqualifying for adminship? But to the point, nothing in that supposedly outrageous diff says one thing about what she would do as an admin.ScotFinnRadish wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 7:31 pmThe not supporting anyone right-of-center for RfA isn't great, but I don't think it's necessarily disqualifying. The big issues I see are what actually counts as right of center, versus center, and will they keep their mop out of political stuff. If they'll keep their mop out of the political arena, then I don't even care where they think right of center starts.
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2022 3:35 am
What I'm seeing is that Tamzin regrets the exact wording of the original post, but still believes fascists and people dumb enough to believe Trump's Big Lie don't have the judgement to administrate ...anything... which I completely agree with.
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2022 3:48 am
Absurdly hyperbolic reactions that focus on dubious victimhood-perceptions are very common amongst our right-wing friends, especially in the USA. But these reactions might have less to do with politics than with the intensity of some of these people's feelings about Wikipedia adminship — I suspect that a lot of these folks would vastly prefer being indefinitely blocked, with or without justification, to being subjected to a pile-on of Oppose votes in their own RfA that ultimately leads to their having to withdraw from it.nableezy wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 2:59 am...Nowhere does Tamzin ever say somebody who supports Trump should be sanctioned, or that they should be silenced and not allowed to edit. Nowhere is there any indication that this view would impact her administrative actions. But thinking that somebody who is in favor of unbridled power being used capriciously maybe shouldnt be given any extra power on the 7th most visited website on the planet is being transformed in to she'll block all the Trumpistas.
At the same time, let's not forget that a common tactic among "Trumpistas" and other right-wing activists — not to mention semi-professional internet "trolls" in general — is to get themselves banned, blocked, etc., intentionally, so they can then claim both victimhood and censorship. Those who are particularly clever can sometimes manipulate the process to ensure that a particular admin ends up being the one to block them, and in the case of Trump supporters, someone with a documented record of anti-Trump sentiments is likely to be a choice target. Presumably that's one of the main reasons why WP:INVOLVED exists, but that's certainly not going to work as intended every single time.
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2022 4:10 am
Like these supposed Christians who wanted so desperately to be discriminated against that they did it to themselves: link
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2022 12:07 pm
Jeez, what is it with Trump supporters? You pull out documented facts of fraud, sexual abuse allegations, and bullying, all documented in multiple independent reliable sources, and they start crying BLP.
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2022 12:48 pm
Yeah seriously what's their problem? Joe Biden sexual assault allegation (T-H-L)Ritchie333 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 12:07 pmJeez, what is it with Trump supporters? You pull out documented facts of fraud, sexual abuse allegations, and bullying, all documented in multiple independent reliable sources, and they start crying BLP.
Tamzin also writes that El C is one of the best AE admins, so on that basis I can't trust their judgment.
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2022 2:44 pm
24 opposes in the last day and counting.
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2022 3:01 pm
27. 
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2022 4:00 pm
Got nearly as many new supports in the same time frame, still at 90% with 2 days to go.
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2022 4:06 pm
What would happen if near the end, there was a clear trend of opposition going right into closing time that would have brought the support% into discretionary range? Would the rfa be extended to allow more in the community to comment?
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2022 4:09 pm
Somebody would surely tweet THE POLES ARE CLOSED and that would be that.
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2022 4:21 pm
Well, as usual, we have a somewhat vague rule: "In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. " I don't personally think that "someone brought this up five days ago (by the time it is ripe for closing) and there might be more people who haven't dropped by in that time frame" is an exceptional circumstance, so probably not. Nearly 300 people have voiced their support already, and only a very few have actually changed their vote because of this. (including the person who asked about it, who from what I can tell went from support, to neutral, back to support, and finally to "regretful" oppose) A number of supporters have also re-affirmed their support.
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2022 4:31 pm
Yet, new people are still coming out to vote. There are more than 300 registered people in the community (even when you take into account the probable sock voting going on).Beeblebrox wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 4:21 pmWell, as usual, we have a somewhat vague rule: "In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. " I don't personally think that "someone brought this up five days ago (by the time it is ripe for closing) and there might be more people who haven't dropped by in that time frame" is an exceptional circumstance, so probably not. Nearly 300 people have voiced their support already, and only a very few have actually changed their vote because of this. (including the person who asked about it, who from what I can tell went from support, to neutral, back to support, and finally to "regretful" oppose) A number of supporters have also re-affirmed their support.
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2022 4:49 pm
Down to 89% now, damn. She'll still pass, but it may provide enough of an asterisk on her RfA to keep her from using her admin tools anywhere near American politics, which I suppose the opposers could chalk up as a win.
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2022 4:58 pm
In legitimate terms, it’s more like 88%-ish. I always support sock vote 2-3 times on every RfA.
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2022 5:10 pm
I'm still not opposing.
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2022 7:10 pm
PinkAmpersand was/is a shithead who played in the SJW space.
I never saw a contribution of theirs to the drama boards that didn’t make things worse.
I never saw a contribution of theirs to the drama boards that didn’t make things worse.
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2022 8:47 pm
I'm a bit surprised nobody's opposed over her getting Manchester confused with Marseille (§) in #7. 
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2022 11:59 pm
With the switching back to support, one could be forgiven for assuming people are being urged off-wiki to amend their votes. Not sure how appropriate that is.
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2022 12:28 am
Nah, I'm just the most indecisive person who has ever lived.
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2022 12:57 am
lol I should have specified everyone but you.Scorpions13256 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 12:28 amNah, I'm just the most indecisive person who has ever lived.
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2022 1:41 am
Accidentally ran across this RFA, had to oppose. I have no use for Trump, (nor most politicians) but this is so far over the line. Admin have to deal with everyone, theoretically in an even handed manner, and I can't see this person acting as an admin in any political articles, not in a fair manner.
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2022 3:41 am
It's not really "over the line" — I'd go with something more like "toes the line." The thing you have to remember is that Trump is so corrosive and generates so much hate and disgust that you can't legitimately pretend it's "normal," or that the traditional rules of political bias-avoidance still apply, or that he and his supporters don't represent a legitimate (if not existential) threat to civil society, and maybe even to Wikipedia itself in the form of future legislation designed to "kneecap" it along with other Big Tech entities. Because if you do pretend those things, people will just assume you're one of them, because those things are what they pretend.Dennis Brown wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 1:41 amAccidentally ran across this RFA, had to oppose. I have no use for Trump, (nor most politicians) but this is so far over the line. Admin have to deal with everyone, theoretically in an even handed manner, and I can't see this person acting as an admin in any political articles, not in a fair manner.
But you say you aren't one of them, so I should give you the benefit of the doubt, right? Though it's not like I know you personally.
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2022 4:19 am
I don’t know how to embed YouTube videos, ah well.
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2022 6:06 am
I do find the following comment from an RfA supporter enlightening (it was moved to the talk page later)
It's not like Kaleeb is quiet about being a Trump supporter; he's had User:UBX/Trump Supporter (T-H-L) on his userpage since the first non-OSed revision. I guess it should be noted that this comment was before the majority of politics-based opposes came in, but I doubt there's any evidence that the candidate's editing has ever actually been affected by politics (rather than obvious hypotheticals). Certainly none of the opposers are putting any effort into finding any such cases.
(diff)Kaleeb18 wrote:I will say though I am a Trump supporter and Tamzin was never rude or mean to me. With the few encounter I’ve had with her, she seemed nice to me.
It's not like Kaleeb is quiet about being a Trump supporter; he's had User:UBX/Trump Supporter (T-H-L) on his userpage since the first non-OSed revision. I guess it should be noted that this comment was before the majority of politics-based opposes came in, but I doubt there's any evidence that the candidate's editing has ever actually been affected by politics (rather than obvious hypotheticals). Certainly none of the opposers are putting any effort into finding any such cases.
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2022 9:47 am
I think when admins allow themselves to be influenced by political bias, most of the time they don't make it obvious. There's nearly always some other justification that can be given when blocking an editor whose politics they don't like: "that user has displayed a battleground attitude", "that user was pushing a POV", etc. The way to detect the presence of bias is if they consistently look the other way about the same behavior from editors whose politics they agree with.extcord wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 6:06 amIt's not like Kaleeb is quiet about being a Trump supporter; he's had User:UBX/Trump Supporter (T-H-L) on his userpage since the first non-OSed revision. I guess it should be noted that this comment was before the majority of politics-based opposes came in, but I doubt there's any evidence that the candidate's editing has ever actually been affected by politics (rather than obvious hypotheticals). Certainly none of the opposers are putting any effort into finding any such cases.
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2022 12:18 pm
Hmm. "neurodivergent" appears to be used as a synonym of "insufferably smug" here:
User_talk:Blaze_Wolf/Archive_4#A_friendly_word (T-H-L)
User_talk:Blaze_Wolf/Archive_4#A_friendly_word (T-H-L)
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2022 12:57 pm
Currently at 286/64/6.Beeblebrox wrote: ↑Tue Apr 26, 2022 4:47 pmWell, this looks certain to sail through. 5 days to go, 179 supports, only 3 opposes, none of which are compelling.
1st 40 hours: 98.3% (179/3)
subsequent 4 days: 63.7% (107/61)
net: 82%
It can't be stressed enough how important it is to get the voters out early!
Yes, at 2:19am, come hell or high water, it's time to POLISH OFF the c(h)ampagne & UP the ballot boxes!
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2022 3:55 pm
It'll probably still pass. There's only about 400 people interested in RfA, so I can't see anything more than 50 more opposes, which still puts it in the upper bound of the discretionary zone. Actually, it would be interesting to see what a 'crat chat makes of all this.
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2022 4:00 pm
But they don't. Anyone defacing the main page with a picture of a penis gets kicked off the site instantly, and rightly so. I remember declining Raquel Baranow (T-C-L) an unblock because they were a Holocaust-denying nut job. Sometimes, you have to not say "Okay, your viewpoint that non-white people have no place in society, that's an interesting viewpoint, let's chat and respect your views", you have to say "Get the hell off this site you racist scumbag".Dennis Brown wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 1:41 amAccidentally ran across this RFA, had to oppose. I have no use for Trump, (nor most politicians) but this is so far over the line. Admin have to deal with everyone, theoretically in an even handed manner, and I can't see this person acting as an admin in any political articles, not in a fair manner.
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2022 7:18 pm
I have to imagine that a ‘crat chat should apply less weight to support !votes amounting to “net positive would make a good admin” that have not been reaffirmed in light of the current direction of discussion, with the vast majority of opposes now having been thought out, articulated, discussed, and explicitly supported by a plurality of well-respected administrators and other veteran editors. You’ll notice that after Cullen and a few others stepped in, the partisan badgering of opposes has finally tapered down to nil.Ritchie333 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 3:55 pmIt'll probably still pass. There's only about 400 people interested in RfA, so I can't see anything more than 50 more opposes, which still puts it in the upper bound of the discretionary zone. Actually, it would be interesting to see what a 'crat chat makes of all this.
I guess if you wanted to make sure that a ‘crat chat goes in favor of the candidate, you could urge each and every three-word support voter to reaffirm (but I think that goes against canvassing policy). I’m sure there is widespread off-wiki canvassing going on anyway, though, given the recent oppose vote reversals to neutral etc.
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2022 8:25 pm
I'd be interested to know whether Tamzin's comments about treating people differently based on their politics apply only to political views those editors have expressed on-Wiki, or whether it also applies to views they've expressed on Twitter, Facebook, etc. if those can be connected to their Wikipedia account. I've seen it argued before that Wikipedia editors can be judged based on views they've expressed off-Wiki, but only with respect to views that are much more extreme than being a Trump supporter.
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2022 9:21 pm
I wonder if the same special courtesy and red carpet treatment that has been shown to Tamzin would be shown to a candidate who ran saying anyone continues to be a Bush supporter should be desysoped because in their view Bush is an oppressor and war mongerer.
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2022 10:24 pm
Such a person would probably also fare well in RfA.
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2022 11:13 pm
And what about a candidate who says Obama is an oppressor and his supporters should be desysoped because his administration was responsible for the indiscriminate drone killings of thousands in Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Or what about Biden whose administration is supplying weapons to Saudis to fuel the worst humanitarian crisis in Yemen?
Combine all the supporters of all the presidents and you'll have none left.
But I guess Trump supporters deserve a special hate.
Or what about Biden whose administration is supplying weapons to Saudis to fuel the worst humanitarian crisis in Yemen?
Combine all the supporters of all the presidents and you'll have none left.
But I guess Trump supporters deserve a special hate.
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2022 11:22 pm
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2022 11:34 pm
A great man once said, don't take refuge in the false security of consensus.
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2022 11:42 pm
Given their statements, the Tools should come with an indefinite topic ban from American politics, broadly construed.
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2022 11:47 pm
The rationale that “if an admin needs to be restricted, then they shouldn’t be an admin” has been applied in a few recent Arbcom desysoppings. Should they have the tools at all?
Re: Tamzin RfA
Posted: Sun May 01, 2022 12:18 am
If it turns out that she is not capable of being impartial, someone can take her to arbcom. Based on my experiences with her (including a time where she admitted that her side was wrong), I see little reason to worry. However, I would have opposed her had she not been active in SPI and RM.
I'm right-wing BTW.
I'm right-wing BTW.