Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Blablubbs

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats blecch!
Post Reply
User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Blablubbs

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Mon Sep 06, 2021 9:03 am

In his 40,000 edits over the last 15 months, he has demonstrated a superb grasp of the letter and spirit of our policies as well as the good judgment and temperament that will make him a terrific administrator
although his account was created back in 2014, he really didn't get into editing until it occurred to him during the insanity of the global pandemic that editing Wikipedia would be something useful to do with his time. 
....working in either of those areas often entails interacting with combative or distressed users, and being lied to is part of the job, which can be aggravating.....They are also areas that can sometimes trigger the frustrating thought that there is an incredible amount of abuse on this website and I will never be able to do enough. I try to stay calm and step away whenever that happens; I read the paper, go outside and take a walk, moan about it to friends, then open the laptop again and type a response. I had an extended "step away for a bit" moment with regard to UPE-related matters some time ago when I noticed that they were starting to burn me out. I didn't give up on the topic area, but I shifted my focus away from actively hunting for PR firm socks and towards bouncing ideas about potential methods for making detection and tracking of complex socking operations back and forth with awesome people like MarioGom and GeneralNotability, with some great results.
Looks like we got another potential Section 8 on our hands.

Thankfully the community doesn't see it. Sucks for him.

If he even lasts that long, it'll be interesting to see what he looks like in ten years.

And not for the first time, we have avid sock hunter and general believer in the Prime Directive (insiders in, outsiders out), who I can guarantee doesn't take much care and doesn't ever consider the possibility for joe jobs and entirely innocent users being caught up in people's power games, being presented to the community as if they were thoughtful, reflective and capable of admitting fault.

Are they lying about their man, or have they genuinely not followed his work enough to see it? Hardly matters. The effect is the same.

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Blablubbs

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Mon Sep 06, 2021 11:51 pm

OK, so we got a wierd kid who was in a "bad place" during the pandemic and who was apparently born in Germany and hates Nazis and thinks he owes a lot to English Wikipedia for basically educating him and giving him a reason to live in the pandemic, had soon fixated on combatting UPE but he can't remember why, and has picked up the technical aspects of sock hunting lightning fast, but has also been learning a lot about social matters, such as people lie, a lot.

I swear to God, if this turns out to be the first case of an AI passing as a human, I want it to be known I was not fooled.

Something about this fucker just creeps me out.

:?

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Blablubbs

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Tue Sep 07, 2021 1:01 am

Just noting for future reference (having just been reminded of it as I looked through his contribs for dirt) that one of the things this little weasel did in his desperate climb up the greasy pole, was to assist the effort to shield Jess Wade from any and all consequences of her shit editing.

I don't know what it is about Princess Wade, but it makes these fuckers absolutely lose their minds. It's become almost routine that their insane need to baby her, usually always leads to bad edits being restored.

In the case of Catherine Chesla, they went so far as to completely obscure all trace of what they had done, marking it For Insiders Eyes Only, presumably because they realised all too late, what the what purpose of that attack was.

They do not want the public, journalists and Congresspeople to know where their priorities lie, as a community. They do not want anyone finding out that for these freaks, who are as one person correctly identifies in that RfA (and is shouted down because of it) treating sock hunting like a blood sport, the interests of established editors always comes first, second and third. And maybe, if they're lucky, the interests of article subjects and Wikipedia as a corporation with liability in certain circumstances, comes fourth.

For all that it is claimed by his nominators that the Right Honorable Blubbs is sensible and reflective and willing to admit his mistakes, in truth, in that incident at least, which while minor, is serious enough to be indicative of a mind that isn't focused on the right things, the world will never know why he played such an enthusiastic role in obscuring all indications of Jess Wade's responsibilities and failings, because whether by negligence or malice, he elected to stay silent.

Wikipedia was lucky that time, and someone was paying attention, an ordinary rank and file grunt editor, and begrudgingly, and rather amusingly with no thanks from anyone in the Administration, the BLP violation was fixed, and there are still enough breadcrucms around that interested journalists wouldn't particularly need the cooperation of the Foundation to find a reason to locate Blubbs and see if he does actually.

So take note, you dumb bastards. When the candidate goes to this much trouble to make sure everyone knows what they do care about, you shouldn't be reading what he is saying, you should be looking out for what he did not say.

It takes a darn sight more than a few months to learn who the real victims of abuse on Wikipedia usually are. Catherine Chesla is one of many. Jess Wade especially, cranks this sort of shit out at a rate of ONE A DAY.

Someone's got to carry the can for these clear and obvious harms. If it's not Wade, and if the law says it's not the Foundation, well, it's got to be the middle men.

The urge to fight an evil driven by ideological purity is useful, just ask the Nazi hunters.

:flamingbanana:

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Blablubbs

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Tue Sep 07, 2021 2:13 am

As usual, the wikdummies didn't pick up on the most relevant part of the Commons deletion incident that has been raised.
Delete per nomination. Also noting that some of these titles alone are so bad that they would likely be considered oversightable on other projects. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeed most of these filenames are unsuitable. But that’s a reason to rename then, not to delete. -- Tuválkin 13:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Schooled!

What was even going through his mind here? Why was he even noting that? Did he want the DR to go faster or get some sort of priority treatment, he just didn't know how to request it? Did he genuinely believe this was a valid deletion reason on Commons? Was this just part of a pattern of needless asides that to casual observers might make them think he knows stuff so he would make a good Admin? We can never know, because most importantly of all, he didn't have a follow up post.

None of these are good things for an en.wiki Administrator.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Blablubbs

Post by ericbarbour » Tue Sep 07, 2021 9:38 pm

but I shifted my focus away from actively hunting for PR firm socks
If so, why do I keep finding and posting examples of undeclared, untagged, undiscovered paid editing? The little prick is not as competent as claimed in the RFA. Which has the usual examples of "ward heeling" and "nein nein, nein! you vill vote in zis way" piling up in the "Oppose" vote section.

This person made a VERY good point. But was shouted down anyway. The deletionist patrollers run the place now. They see "bad faith" in every little corner of the servers of the WMF. They see nails and constantly scream for more shotguns. Because hammers aren't destructive enough.
Strong oppose We need fewer rather than more admins addicted to the bloodsport of sock-hunting. Recklessly blocking open proxies and VPNs just because they exist has caused untold damage to the project; those who would contribute to it require not reinforcement but reeducation. With that in mind, the candidate's answers to questions 1, 2, and 3 leave me with no choice but to oppose. "(B)eliefs that deny or downplay the humanity of people are inherently incompatible with a collaborative editing environment(,)" says the candidate('s user page), apparently. I couldn't possibly agree more! Iaritmioawp (talk) 11:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Post Reply