Tamzin RfA

[Vigilant]

The WeMakeFailures engineering team makes an appearance!

"The time allocated for running scripts has expired"

What does that even mean? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

This was happening at WP:BN the other day too. I thought someone had fixed it. SQLQuery Me! 01:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I attempted to fix the archive counter as a fix, as it worked at WP:CR, albeit for a different error. It seems like this error probably can't be fixed by editing. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:8CB1:4D9D107D (talk) 02:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Lua error messages § Lua timeout error explains it; this occurs on very large pages. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
This page is indeed at a whopping 465kb so lol yeah it takes a while just to load it, let alone any scripts on top of it. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

465KB is not a very large page, you gibbering ding dong.

[Trismic]

I’ve created vandal user pages in excess of 100k kb and not had a problem with them

[Vigilant]

I predict Tamzin will get the tools but with a big * next to their name.

Given their temperament, within two years, they'll be at ARBCOM for getting in a predictably stupid tussle over political articles and then they'll lose the tools and there will be crying and rending of clothes and sackcloth and ashes to rival even Rexxs.

[Trismic]

I predict Tamzin will get the tools but with a big * next to their name.

Given their temperament, within two years, they'll be at ARBCOM for getting in a predictably stupid tussle over political articles and then they'll lose the tools and there will be crying and rending of clothes and sackcloth and ashes to rival even Rexxs.

The Arbcom case will end up just like this RfA.

[Fender]

So I have a bunch of family whom, while I love dearly, drive me fucking batty with their conservative political bullshit. But I do try to listen, and they have brought up how Wikipedia is run by all extreme left wingers. I don't talk back other than saying Wikipedia is a site that strives for neutrality. But this... This is the epitome of what they mean. I hate that they're right about this (no pun intended).

[egg]

Wikipedia is run by all extreme left wingers.

What other group is prepared to work tirelessly without pay for no discernible benefit?

[Vigilant]

Wikipedia is run by all extreme left wingers.

What other group is prepared to work tirelessly without pay for no discernible benefit?

QAnon would like a word.

[Tarc]

So I have a bunch of family whom, while I love dearly, drive me fucking batty with their conservative political bullshit. But I do try to listen, and they have brought up how Wikipedia is run by all extreme left wingers. I don't talk back other than saying Wikipedia is a site that strives for neutrality. But this... This is the epitome of what they mean. I hate that they're right about this (no pun intended).

Wait'll they react when you tell em about public schools, higher ed, the media, entertainment industry, and most medical/scientific professions.

[Parabola]

If you think literally anybody with power on wikipedia is "extremely left wing", well, lol, you have been insanely poisoned by some shifting of the goal posts.

[Captain Occam]

Wikipedia is run by all extreme left wingers.

What other group is prepared to work tirelessly without pay for no discernible benefit?

I think there is another factor here too, which is that most of the conservative Wikipedians I'm familiar with tend to focus exclusively on low-profile content work, and almost never participate in places like AE, ANI, RFA, etc. So even if leftists aren't necessarily an overall majority at Wikipedia, they are a majority in the parts of Wikipedia that are most important in shaping its political direction.

[Fender]

So I have a bunch of family whom, while I love dearly, drive me fucking batty with their conservative political bullshit. But I do try to listen, and they have brought up how Wikipedia is run by all extreme left wingers. I don't talk back other than saying Wikipedia is a site that strives for neutrality. But this... This is the epitome of what they mean. I hate that they're right about this (no pun intended).

Wait'll they react when you tell em about public schools, higher ed, the media, entertainment industry, and most medical/scientific professions.

Yes, I have been through this all. There is a lot of nastiness and insults. This is no revelation to me. It is very frustrating to say the least.

[Sentinel]

I don't see how an RfA with over 75.2% support, which is above the threshold affirmed by the community, can be closed as anything other than "successful". The login attempts for oppose voters are concerning and are probably enough to justify a crat chat. I no longer really pay attention to RfAs these days, but this reminds me of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Liz (T-H-L), another RfA involving a user with outspoken political opinions; looking back, the Liz RfA happened during the days of Gamergate and was a lot uglier. I can also think of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ad Orientem (T-H-L), a candidate who holds right-of-center political opinions by Wikipedia standards and has gotten a few opposes as a result, but not to the extent that it places him in the discretionary range.

[Parabola]

There's threads every week about login attempts against all sorts of people. Its the easiest possible way to shit-stir and cause problems.

its mind boggling how it still works, but I guess a lot of the older set still see anything like that and go "my god im being hacked!!!" and don't think it through

[Beeblebrox]

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.

They had no choice. Now we wait.

I imagine some of you would.. care to make it interesting?

[Jazzman]

Nominated by Drmies. What could possibly go wrong?

Idk, but I certainly doubt that Kudpung will be making many nominations going forward.

What would make anyone think KP has the slightest interest in being pro-active on Wikipedia these days except for throwing in the occasional comment?

[Zoloft]

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.

They had no choice. Now we wait.

I imagine some of you would.. care to make it interesting?

It's sort of like betting on cockroach races, though. Random and hard to watch.

Needs more pageantry:
link

[Tamzin, reluctantly]

I imagine some of you would.. care to make it interesting?

Hmm... Do I double down, or cover the spread?

[Parabola]

They had no choice. Now we wait.

I imagine some of you would.. care to make it interesting?

[Jazzman]

I think there is another factor here too, which is that most of the conservative Wikipedians I'm familiar with tend to focus exclusively on low-profile content work, and almost never participate in places like AE, ANI, RFA, etc. So even if leftists aren't necessarily an overall majority at Wikipedia, they are a majority in the parts of Wikipedia that are most important in shaping its political direction.

- sounds fairly accurate.

[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.

They had no choice. Now we wait.

I imagine some of you would.. care to make it interesting?

I wonder what the process is.

Can this body been seen to provide an impartial answer?

I can't imagine it's as screwed up as ARBCOM proceedings.

[Dennis Brown]

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.

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".

Anyone that is a far right nut job probably has no capacity for NPOV, so surely would likely be desysopped at Arb for cause or simply never would pass RFA. Anyone that says that anyone "right of center" should be desysopped is a far left nut job and shouldn't be admin for the same reason. This is very much a liberal litmus test, which is wholly inconsistent with being an admin, or even editor. If you can't check your politics at the door, you shouldn't get inside. Wikipedia isn't exactly a neutral place, politics wise, with the vast majority of editors being to the left. Fortunately, most of them are pretty good at writing in a neutral manner.

[Vigilant]

That's not what recuse means.

I voted oppose, so I can't get involved. If I was to be involved I would say that this is borderline but passes because of the exceptional number of reaffirms after Hammersoft's oppose. My comment counts nothing toward Crat consensus, but is a view from someone in the oppose camp. SilkTork (talk) 09:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

So, just like ARBCOM then...

[Dennis Brown]

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.

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.

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.

Trump fans are, a unique breed, and no, I'm not one of them. I actually had high hopes when he took office, as I do any new president, to be honest. But he got a bit crazy fast. Still, you can't use that as a litmus test. More importantly, you can't say "anyone right of center" should be desysopped. Being right of center is not at all the same as being a Trumpster. Setting that threshold tells me they are so far left, they are just the liberal equivalent of a Trumpster. Having extreme views isn't the issue, it's whether or not you can overcome them, or simply avoid those areas so your views don't interfere with the administration of the place. And in that respect, I don't think that is the case.

Btw, there have been several articles on JFK talking about if he were alive to day, he would be considered right of center. So I guess he would be unfit to admin at Wikipedia as well.

[Zoloft]

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.

I like this because there is no right decision now.

• NO and the crats took an RFA not in the discretionary range and overturned it.
• YES and the crats approved what will likely be a troubled choice.

A super!vote either way.

ConCratulations!

[Parabola]

Anyone that is a far right nut job probably has no capacity for NPOV, so surely would likely be desysopped at Arb for cause or simply never would pass RFA. Anyone that says that anyone "right of center" should be desysopped is a far left nut job and shouldn't be admin for the same reason. This is very much a liberal litmus test, which is wholly inconsistent with being an admin, or even editor. If you can't check your politics at the door, you shouldn't get inside. Wikipedia isn't exactly a neutral place, politics wise, with the vast majority of editors being to the left. Fortunately, most of them are pretty good at writing in a neutral manner.

One of the admins who was all over that RFA is a literal self described monarchist, which is about as far right nutjob as you can get, so I don't really buy the 'left wing cabal!!!!' panic. Everyone acts on their political biases, who gives a shit. There's no such thing as a neutral center, because the people who consider themselves "in the middle" are just a different brand of politics. The bizarre brain poison of "politics is a really simple two pole axis" runs deep in people, christ.

There's no center. It's all a big murky 3D space, and the thing you think is "apolitical" is just your preferred slurry.

[Vigilant]

There's no center. It's all a big murky 3D space, and the thing you think is "apolitical" is just your preferred slurry.

Where does that leave Tamzin then?

[Parabola]

But, since we're dealing with The Grand Ole U S of A, I'll be specific. Nobody involved in this is a hard leftist. The whole point of the Trump years was literally every single camp figuring out how they could align themselves against or for the admin, and both American Poles got in on the feeding frenzy. Remember the Lincoln Project dumbasses? All the neocon shitheads who branded themselves Never Trump to a put new coat of paint on the same ol bush-era politics?

There's nothing even particularly left about hating Trump. The younger set on wikipedia that you're deeply scared of for their Extreme Leftism are (and I say this with love, folks, if you're reading) West Wing weaned democrats, or rose emoji YDSAers. That's soft left. The left that is fighting tooth and nail to support shit that was barely leftist 50 years ago. The New Deal might as well be Maoist at this point. Nobody applying at RFA is anything further left than that, and its hilarious that somehow that scares you.

Imagine if someone truly banging on about the immortal science actually got nominated, christ. Me and the boys from Estonia talking about gulags.

[iii]

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.

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?

Some of you, especially the old-timers, know this already, but there are enough people active in this thread that do not, I guess we need a review.

The mechanics of Wikipedia are that it functions based around agenda-driven factions. How do these factions come to power? Basically through wars of attrition. If you can set-up a group that outlasts the others, you will come to dominate editorial control. Indeed, that's basically the only way anyone comes to dominate editorial control.

The right wing has always been unable to leverage the rules of Wikipedia to gain control. Their failed attempts litter the archives of the dramaboards and criticism sites. Arkon rightly points out that the last significant attempt at this was long about when the Trumpers tried to make inroads (most of them radicalized around Gamergate, I surmise). Success eluded their attempted insurgency.

The way this process has often been described is "House POV". There are actually some areas where the House POV tilted right and the legacy is still seen to this day: military history, Christianity, terrorism, certain dead-end economics articles. But for the most part the "House POV" is leftist. In our increasingly polarized world, this unspoken bias when said out loud takes on the veneer of being exclusionary. But this is nothing new. I am certain the same opinions that have been held by Tamzin about fitness for service of certain political-opinion holders would not be out of place in 2007 Wikipedia. At that time, Donald Trump was practically left wing, so such a declaration about Donald Trump would not have made sense. But replace Donald Trump with say, Pat Buchanan and that would be about the semantic equivalent except that this right-wing revanchism is now much more prominent and even arguably "mainstream".

So I have a bunch of family whom, while I love dearly, drive me fucking batty with their conservative political bullshit. But I do try to listen, and they have brought up how Wikipedia is run by all extreme left wingers. I don't talk back other than saying Wikipedia is a site that strives for neutrality. But this... This is the epitome of what they mean. I hate that they're right about this (no pun intended).

Wikipedia is only "run" by extreme left wingers to the extent that they've been playing along and chipping away at the policy edges more successfully than their right wing counterparts. But let's be clear, Wikipedia is actually run by a self-appointed mob that curates participation through political lenses both written ("NO LEGAL THREATS", "NOT CENSORED", "NO ADVERTISING") and unwritten. The only WPians who have staying power are those who cultishly agree to uphold the status quo and only budge Overton Windows ever so slightly over years and sometimes decades. The House POV inertia is such that affecting it can only be done through long and subtle processes. Right now, the Trumpers absolutely are marginalized on the website. This is hardly surprising because the Wikipedia endeavor is pretty orthogonal to the normal goals of Trumpers. I am sure they would like to control certain content and use Wikipedia for dissemination of their propaganda, but they're more-or-less uninterested in playing along with the insipid Wikipedia collegiality that is demanded to shore up support. Those that have seen moderate success have usually done so by adopting the concern troll and devil's advocate positions... a look that currently seems to me to be out of fashion for the right wing operatives.

I'll also take the opportunity to repeat one of my bugbears: The claim that Wikipedia is neutral or even that it "strives for neutrality" is false. Larry Sanger (yes that Larry Sanger) came up with this late nineties canard that it would somehow be possible to develop a crowdsourced encyclopedia with one of its pillar's dedicated to neutrality. Wikipedia is not neutral because human beings are not neutral. It's not neutral because "neutrality" is a castle in the air.

[Parabola]

Trump fans are, a unique breed, and no, I'm not one of them. I actually had high hopes when he took office, as I do any new president, to be honest. But he got a bit crazy fast. Still, you can't use that as a litmus test. More importantly, you can't say "anyone right of center" should be desysopped. Being right of center is not at all the same as being a Trumpster. Setting that threshold tells me they are so far left, they are just the liberal equivalent of a Trumpster. Having extreme views isn't the issue, it's whether or not you can overcome them, or simply avoid those areas so your views don't interfere with the administration of the place.

You can say whatever you want. You're saying that there's a line somewhere to left where people shouldn't be allowed to admins, yeah? Hows that different? Who gets the define what's extreme? The centrist poisoning of "Well, I'm the center. I'm the compass rose." is wild. There's no such thing as "extreme" left. Just different. What about Tamzin's politics is extreme? That she puts the line in a different place than you? You, who only realized Trump was an insane racist after he got into office?

The idea that someone who's life is being legislated out of existence might feel pretty fucking strongly about politics is foreign to you, I imagine. Think about why that might be.

[Parabola]

Wait, sorry, credit where credit is due. I realized I started riffing at the end there and poorly replicated this much funnier post from MastCell on the RFA (shoutouts to mastcell, and pre-emptively: i dont care or want anyones weird dossier on him. keep it to yourself)

As for the reaction to Q14, it's predictable Wikipedia stuff. Let's just say that if the Republican Party were trying to legislate middle-aged white male WWII buffs out of existence, a lot more of you would probably sympathize with her qualms, as a transgender person, about Trump supporters. But that's a distraction from her excellent qualifications as a potential admin, which are the core issue here.

[Vigilant]

There's nothing even particularly left about hating Trump. The younger set on wikipedia that you're deeply scared of for their Extreme Leftism are (and I say this with love, folks, if you're reading) West Wing weaned democrats, or rose emoji YDSAers. That's soft left. The left that is fighting tooth and nail to support shit that was barely leftist 50 years ago. The New Deal might as well be Maoist at this point. Nobody applying at RFA is anything further left than that, and its hilarious that somehow that scares you.

Imagine if someone truly banging on about the immortal science actually got nominated, christ. Me and the boys from Estonia talking about gulags.

lol, no.

More shabby psuedo-intellectualism from you.

First off, nobody is 'scared' of the 'left' on en.wp. That's some sort of weird projection you keep trying to do. It's just not true.

Secondly, we're not talking liberal economics here, so bringing up the New Deal is off the mark as well.

You have such an axe to grind that you can't every reevaluate a situation and come to a new understanding.

Tamzin is in this bind because they are a lazy thinker and without nuance around a topic that affects them directly.
"Right of center" is an ambiguous term by your own analysis.
Being "unable to support" someone for RfA because they are "right of center" means that their critical thinking should be viewed with pretty heavy skepticism.

But you can't do any of that because, like the alt-right, you feel the need to spew coded garbage into every conversation and you HAVE to 'win'.
There is no conversation with you.. It's always you ranting at the dummies who refuse see your brilliance.

The fact that you think this is entirely an age related function makes you even less credible.

I guess you stared into that particular abyss too long.

[Parabola]

Aw, buddy, there is an abyss I'm staring at, but hey, once we get to the Emerald City, I'm sure the wizard will put a brain in there for you.


edit as to preserve space

\/ \/ \/ https://i.imgur.com/0MaGvTN.mp4 \/ \/ \/

[Vigilant]

Aw, buddy, there is an abyss I'm staring at, but hey, once we get to the Emerald City, I'm sure the wizard will put a brain in there for you.

Proving my point.

You're a lot like Abd but with a different vernacular.

[hako9]

The idea that someone who's life is being legislated out of existence might feel pretty fucking strongly about politics is foreign to you, I imagine. Think about why that might be.

Imagine a Yemeni candidate coming to RfA saying Obama supporters should be desysoped because he bombed my family in a drone strike.

[Parabola]

I'm imagining it, and its badass. They'd be right to want that.

The thing you're doing in both cases is reading "I think [x]" and somehow it gets turned into "I'm going to force you to do [x]" as it worms its way through your brain. The countrymen of the countless people murdered by drone strikes have every right to think that Obama voters shouldn't be admins but, like in tamzins case, it is a personal preference and has no bearing on who will actually become admins.

[Vigilant]

en.wp should expect more from the people they invest with these tools.

Lazy thinking about collective responsibility leads to dehumanization of individuals.
It's ironic, if unsurprising, that you support this kind of 'othering'.

[Parabola]

I'm realizing now that what wikipedia needs more than ever is an influx of trots. Everyone's had it too easy, thinking that you're dealing with the Dangerous Left. You wanna see some real leftist nutjobs who love rules? Gonna have the fuckin spartacist league start tabling at WP:NPOV. then you'll see

everyones just very lucky that the atmosphere is hostile to anarchists

en.wp should expect more from the people they invest with these tools.

Lazy thinking about collective responsibility leads to dehumanization of individuals.
It's ironic, if unsurprising, that you support this kind of 'othering'.

oh my god dude, the argument is about whether they should be fucking admins on wikipedia, not whether they're human. cry me a fucking river. were you "dehumanized" when you got eighty-sixed from the waffle house for getting a little too frisky with the syrup bottles? no. its low stakes shit. calm down

[Vigilant]

You are so very much the Abd2.

You read like a chatbot that accidentally ingested a sophomore level pysch text.

[Vigilant]

The crat chat talkpage is still going.

I second this. Calling me alt-right is almost an insult. I consider myself socially progressive, in some aspects even radically on the left. I switched to Oppose, objecting to the Trumpian demonisation and disenfranchisement of a large part of Wikipedia editor population. It's beyond me when someone calling themselves progressive engages in such behaviour on a project that has WP:AGF and WP:NPOV among its core tenets. I can't, in all my honesty, support such a shamelessly partisan admin. — kashmīrī TALK 10:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

[Trismic]

It’ll keep going for a while

[iii]

Lazy thinking about collective responsibility leads to dehumanization of individuals.

[Guerillero]

Vigilant and Parabola need their own board to snark at each other

The fact that 20 users who mostly joined between 2003 and 2007 get to super vote this thing like the house of lords is pretty messed up. (The "youngest" crat is Primefac who joined in 2010 and then it is Worm That Turned who joined in 2008)

[Vigilant]

Vigilant and Parabola need their own board to snark at each other

He just needs to stop humping my leg.

[Captain Occam]

I like this because there is no right decision now.

• NO and the crats took an RFA not in the discretionary range and overturned it.
• YES and the crats approved what will likely be a troubled choice.

A super!vote either way.

ConCratulations!

There's also a third option, which is to re-open the RFA until there's a clearer consensus in one direction or the other. One of the bureaucrats is suggesting that:

Well here we are. At first glance it appears that additional information that arose during the RfA impacted the consensus of participants after that introduction. To that, I think this RfA could benefit from additional running time to allow the earlier participants to reevaluate their positions. Unless we have some 'crat agreement to do this very soon, the usefulness of that will wane. I do not think we are in a situation where the RfA became so defective that it would need to be restarted from scratch. Following up on that, I will need some time to review the entire discussion to come to a conclusion.

This is probably the only option that won't cause a lot of drama.

[Vigilant]

The WeMakeFailures team is really living up to their name.

Transclusion expansion time report (%,ms,calls,template)

100.00% 6338.702 1 -total
90.81% 5756.008 1 Template:RfA_tally
1.87% 118.794 87 Template:Tq
1.60% 101.355 32 Template:Tqq
1.05% 66.448 1 Template:Cn
1.03% 65.555 1 Template:RfA_toolbox
0.99% 62.606 1 Template:Navbox
0.91% 57.963 2 Template:Fix
0.68% 43.207 2 Template:User
0.56% 35.752 3 Template:Category_handler

It took a script almost 6 seconds to process 450KB of text and return a tally of votes?

[Vigilant]

This is probably the only option that won't cause a lot of drama.

I disagree.

I have high hopes that will pass because it will cause untold amounts of additional dramah.

[Trismic]

I have high hopes that will pass because it will cause untold amounts of additional dramah.

I assume you mean when she ends up at Arbcom for desysopping?

[Vigilant]

I have high hopes that will pass because it will cause untold amounts of additional dramah.

I assume you mean when she ends up at Arbcom for desysopping?

Sorry, I wasn't clear in my reply.

I was talking about the proposal by a crat to either extend the RfA to allow for additional commenting/voting or to restart it from scratch.

I trimmed the comment I replied to too closely.

[Captain Occam]

Re-opening the RFA for another few days might cause some additional drama in the short term (by allowing the debate to continue), but in the long term I think there will be a lot more of it if the RFA is closed in its current state as either failed or successful. Either of the latter options would amount to a supervote, for the reasons Zoloft mentioned.

[Trismic]

I’m sure the anticipation of supervote complaints is factoring into crat decisions. Kudos to UninvitedCompany for not caving to that (so far, anyway - it wouldn’t surprise me at all if he abruptly changed his position without explanation, after seeing all the oppose votes struck at the 11th hour).