https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1022495937
The primary control signal governing what he says and does at Wikipedia, are his own personal emotions. At any moment in time, what's going on in his life, will drastically impact what you can do on Wikipedia, if you're unlucky enough to edit the same topics he has strong feelings over.
Even if the two have absolutely nothing in common. One example there is him calling editors nazis and racists for their views on the Capitol insurrection, because he has heard people he cares about are dying of Covid in India.
He is a perfect example of the COMPLETE AND TOTAL FAILURE of Wikipedia govenance in ensuring that content disputes are handled by people who have got their emotional lives in check.
Wikipedia allegedly runs on facts and reason, not loyalty tests and cult like behaviour. But you have a hard time looking at that page, figuring out whether the people kissing his butt are doing so because of his powers of reason, or just his power.
His inability to consider whether he could could actually be wrong on seriously divisive issues like who is responsible for the death of an unarmed woman shot by a police officer during the Capitol riot, virtually disqualifies him as an editor of a collaborative encyclopedia, let alone an Administrator.
Like he says though, and never forget this is a WIKIPEDIA ADMINISTRATOR talking, not some random unimportant cunt....
That's it. So, presumably, if you ask for a reliable source which is framing her death in this manner, and indeed presents it as the only possible interpretation, on the perfectly reasonable grounds that you were told Wikipedia goes by the sources, not by what some wannabe Antifa Generalissimo cunt wishes was the unquestionable truth, he's not going to reply.Babbitt was a victim of a delusional cult, not of a police officer. And that's all I have to say on this matter.
Not for him, is the perfectly encyclopedic (and reliably sourced) aspect of this whole affair that says, maybe if the Capitol Police had heeded the warnings from the Feds, they might not have found themselves in the decidedly novel situation of having to fire their weapons to stop an apparent coup. Quite the day, for the world's greatest democracy, eh?
At a stroke, eclipsed in the world rankings of NUMBER OF ATTEMPTED COUP RELATED DEATHS TODAY by any number of the shithole countries.
Not for him, any blame on the Democrat side, for acting like there was no threat here. Acting like their very Republican like blind faith in their precious crusty parchment founding document would save them, and somehow Trump would just accept defeat and walk away. Like that's what all the preceding months and years had told you was the kind of guy he was.
As he had always done, he had literally told you his plan. We have the bikers. We have the police. We have Q. He certainly did.
Americans gambled on him being a coward, and lo and behold, it was exactly his cowardice that you could have used to foretell this exact sequence of events.
This is what they did. American Demwanks. Go look at the Wikipediocracy forum at the time. Packed to the rafters with dumb cunts acting like I was "crazy" for PREDICTING THIS EXACT THING. And if you don't think I'm a reliable source, you can of course use Bill Maher as a cite.
And if you press Guy Chapman to answer, to explain his apparent shut down of any debate on this matter, to fulfil his obligations of accountability as an Administrator, he will use his fascist powers to shut you the hell up. He has done it before, he will do so again. You don't lose your taste for that sort of power. You go out and get yourself fitted for a snazzy black uniform and a neat little slogan you can use to justify it.
Chapman is a Nazi. A straight up, mentally unbalanced, properly needs therapy to sort out his daddy issues, Nazi.
There's a reason he keeps mentioning his distant relatives. Obsessed with it even. He's trying to convince himself, that he can't be a Nazi, because his genes are pure. As we well know, the Nazis were big into purity.
They also claimed they were standing up for democracy. For freedom. Does Guy Chapman sound like the kind of person who is just so done with democracy now? Does he sound like an authoritarian in the making? Intolerant. Arrogant. Someone who happily removes your right to vote, and acts like it's for your best interests, because as a custodian of your democratic interest, he would do a much better job of exercising your vote than you, you dumb bastard.
There's a reason he labels people he doesn't agree with. Insults them. Denigrates them. People who are nominally signed up to the same goals he has.
This isn't realy a man who should have access to guns, as he worryingly just drops into casual conversation there. We can't take the risk that he might not do the right thing and use it to rid himself of the daily tumult that must be his mind.
Tough gig, trying to be World Emperor. Kinda stressful. Not conducive to rational thought. Very conducive to finding yourself a nice little bunker, a safe little ideology, a satisfying means of enacting it, and a small group of loyal butt kissers content to keep you in your delusion that VICTORY is at hand, any day now.
As always, we look forward to the good folks of Wikipediocracy giving a shit about such issues. Analysing the very things that speak to the very heart of what Wikipedia is, at its core. It's dark heart.
What would this Wikipedia, controlled by these people, do to a competitor, after all? Embrace it, work with it, learn from it?
Nah. It aims to do what Chapman undoubtedly does to kittens. And then have a wank afterwards.
I mean, it's not like Wikipediocracy don't have multiple members whose primary job on Wikipedia is to monitor Administrators for basic compliance with their rules, let alone to ensure they're not displaying Nazi tendencies.
Because I'm pretty sure the Nazis let their emotions rule their heads when it came down to what was important to them, what drove them to get up in the morning. Kind of a defining trait. If they were rational intelligent beings, as any war historian would tell you, they probably could have won the war.
Chapman doesn't get up in the morning thinking of practical ways he can help his dying Indian friends. He is thinking about how he can crush people and ideas on Wikipedia, to distract himself from his deep emotional traumas.
You just know this fucker tortures kittens, given half the chance and a bottle of wine in him, you just fucking know it.
You could maybe ask them a question or two, Jake? Wikipediocracy Forum Admin.
Hey, Beeblebrox, that Guy Chapman looks like a bit of a loose cannon. Have you ever thought about examining his conduct against the expected behaviour of Administrators over there in your day job at Wikipedia?
That sort of thing. Accountability, and all that.
Beeblebrox recently claimed on Wikipediocracy that ArbCom has never been more open to being held to account. And he never lies, does he?
Oh look, a flying pig.