I was most lately amused to note her bizarre protest against Framban. She's taken to adding a note in her edit summaries that each edit is not an endorsement of the WMF. This seems to be her goto piece of copypasta....
....but unbelievably she has also used various hand-written iterations, before and after she adopted the more efficient slacktivism method. Some are pretty lengthy and bizarre.....This edit intended to improve the encyclopedia should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the WMF.
Note: My effort in this edit in no way constitutes an endorsement of the WMF, whose conduct and misuse of our volunteer work as endorsement of their priorities, actions, and expansion are the reasons I hesitate to move it to mainspace.
The thing about disclaimers is, you do need to apply them to every edit. Because I see quite a few edits in her contribs list which, by her own hand, must be the dreaded "endorsement of the WMF". I initially assumed maybe she is only tagging article edits, but no.This should probably be an article, but at the least it merits an actual redirect from what's presented at the target article as if it's an article title; it took some searching to find our coverage. I won't create the article because the WMF would use my effort as evidence in favor of their treatment of the project and its editors. But I'll create at least one more redirect.
It could only be these sort of fruit loops who could have thrown themselves in front of the efforts to ensure Eric Corbett complied with basic policy. Like this server filling nonsense, that too was an obviously futile gesture. Notably it was rare (unique?) in moving Eric to express remorse for the lengths others were prepared to go to defend him, because he was such a stubborn prick. He didn't stop being a stubborn prick, so it was useful in that regard, yet more proof the only option before the governance system was to accept him warts and all, or ban him. It still took years before his eventual end played out.
Endorsement is a tricky thing. If, for example, people collaborate with this woman, are they endorsing her view that in some bizarre way, not applying the rules to Eric, was legitimately viewed as some kind of concession to the project's diversity efforts. Maybe she was serious, but I rather think this was just cover for the real reason mentioned at the same time, namely blocking Eric goes against the primary purpose of Wikipedia. She did, of course, interpret him recently being caught bang to rights for sock-puppeting to evade scrutiny and getting duly indef-blocked for it, as yet another example of ArbCom interference in the basic purpose of Wikipedia.
She would have made a great Arbitrator, for the HTD cause. Sadly, Timmy's suggestion she stand was met with a moment of uncharacteristic clarity......
No shit. But here's a thought....why not start acting like you understand what that really means in a community driven project? Because we've all now seen the truth of all those earnest claims from a vocal minority that Eric was indispensable. Much as I wish his demise would have heralded the collapse of Wikipedia, it hasn't.I wouldn't get elected
For someone who preaches what she does, she is remarkably deaf to other points of view, and entirely uninterested in defending her own baldy stated views, other than, of course, just expecting you to accept she is right. With no hint of irony, in her defence of Eric Corbett, she spoke about how civility is not about bad words, it's about respect. True. The list of people this woman evidently respects on Wikipedia, is small. Tiny.
She is as out of place on Wikipedia as an Icelander in the Carribean. And I've seen that shit, it 'ain't pretty.