Tails Wx @ RfA

[ericbarbour]

One suspects he was so poor a candidate he may have even had to be told to withdraw, on the quiet. If so, dude, you need to be quicker on the draw than that to make it look convincing.

Likely true--though it didn't help that the whole thing was being mocked here and on Wikipediocracy.

When insiders like Fastily, Fuchs and Silktork showed up to oppose, that was the end. Tamzin voting oppose was just a bit of smelly icing on the shitcake. Remember her deranged RFA? That vote was a LOT more negative, but because Tamzin is "SPESHUL", and would never take NO for an answer, they gave her the magical spiked baseball bat anyway.

Even when the candidate folds and walks away, the "sainted process" of adminship request still looks like a shitcake.

[ChaosMeRee]

Do not be surprised if Banks Irk, a content editor for TEN YEARS, gets banned soon.

We are not surprised, but we are entertained......

08:32, 30 December 2023 Primefac talk contribs blocked Banks Irk talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) ({{OversightBlock}}

You have been blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges in relation to information which has been removed from Wikipedia's public records.

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. -- Primefac (talk) 08:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

From this.....

RFA

Your comment at RFA made me look at the candidate's uploads. They suggest to me that (Redacted). Discretion being the better part of valor, and having already incurred plenty of wrath, I'll not raise the issue at RFA itself. Banks Irk (talk) 01:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Banks Irk: I don't like to oppose an RfA. We have few people generally who are willing to stand, and fewer still who are willing to contribute in that seat. I sat on it for a few days, but it just doesn't strike me right. GMGtalk 02:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I was in the same boat, though for a few hours rather than days. There are more than a few red flags. FYI, according to (Redacted). Banks Irk (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Meh. I'm knocking on old, and I'm still not sure that I'm really an adult. But that's something you only wonder if you're getting old, I guess. GMGtalk 02:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely inappropriate conjecture and reposting of private information, Banks Irk. Kindly knock it off, and keep your observations to yourself. Primefac (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. Next time, I'll try to be more subtle about the elephant in the room, like Silk Tork, who hit the nail on the head without crossing any lines. Banks Irk (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I would conjecture that Banks found something in Tails' Commons uploads that suggests they are a minor.

The reference to SilkTork's comment is very telling.....

Oppose I had concerns early on that Tails didn't seem to quite have the application or maturity or focus that I like to see in an admin. As various concerns have been raised it is becoming clearer to me that this is a possible WP:NOTYET situation. I don't think any one of the concerns is in itself serious, it is just the accumulation of them - the little details ......... I want all users to learn from their mistakes, not repeat them. I really expect that as standard from an admin. The answers and the hesitations I'm seeing here are doing the opposite of giving me confidence. And while the renaming of their account is a personal matter, along with the decision not to reveal that there had been past names, along with the decision to have their userpage deleted three months ago and the inability to remember why, it adds to the feeling of lack of certainty and confidence that I get from Tails. A driving examiner looks for knowledge, awareness, and confidence before giving someone a driving license. And I feel the same here. I'd like to see more certainty of knowledge, more awareness, and more confidence before we give Tails their admin license. SilkTork (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

In other words. He's too young to drive. Or drink. Or operate Wikipedia heavy machinery.

But of course, this is Wikipedia. There is no lower age limit.

And evidently, laws to compel Wikipedia to implement age verification, are a threat to human civilisation, or some bullshit.

And for pointing all that out in a direct way, for ironically doing so in a way that presumably endangers the safety of a child, a child whose safety has already been compromised by being allowed to upload and edit content on Wikimedia servers without age verification, Banks is toast.

How else is he supposed to point it out though?

Alert ArbCom? Yeah, but no. They have the power and moral duty to build the groundswell of support for such a change (even if they personally disagree with it) and present it to the Foundation in their weekly sit-downs as a demand of the free-citizenry of the Republic of Wikipedia that the owners of the servers are obliged to enact or else FACE THEIR WRATH. But it is only when you write it out in those terms, you realise what a joke the whole Framgate revolution was.

Alert Wikipediocracy? Ha. Last I saw, they are against age verification and are far too busy sucking Arbcom dick anyway....

In the past, we've only pre-verified Wikipedia-linked accounts for "bigwigs" like Arbcom members and some of the better-known admins. (Also, anyone wearing a large wig.) We do this by asking the WPO member to use the WP account to make a minor corrective edit that we specifically direct them to (and don't worry, there's never a shortage). Anyway, assuming this was in fact an impersonation attempt, my apologies to Mr. Linguae for not considering him to be important enough to pre-verify. He was selected as "Editor of the Week" only a month ago, so I guess I dropped the ball on that one!

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... 91#p340988

Alert the media directly? Yeah, Stepehn Harrison of Slate will get right on that. And The Guardian (vapidly left wing, former Board member Jimmy Wales and funded via the Wikipedia model).

The Daily Mail would write this up, but of course, that is not a newspaper according to Wikipedia and their Wikipediocracy cousins.

A child almost got made a Wikipedia Administrator, all because it was a holiday and there is already an Admin shortage and because the whole project is broken as fuck, noting as we must that Framgate only happened because SikTork was too chicken shit to tell Fram to "knock it off" with the maximum authority of his former ArbCom office when he had the chance.

Wikipedia is completely and totally broken, at least insofar as moral leadership goes. This was just a way-point.....

Two members of the ArbCom rookie class of '21, which with their two other classmates is what passes for the veteran core of ArbCom these days, are not out there busy on high level matters of leadership or arranging the pencils and colouring books of the SIX rookies that entered the Hallowed Chambers this year.

They're busy out there in the trenches doing the scut work. Identifying and nominating Admin candidates (poorly). Warning, oversighting and blocking those who identify red flags about said candidates. Doing fuck all about what those red flags represent.

If I were Vigilant and prone to pathetic conspiracy theories, I have all I need to go off on a tear about how Arbitrator Barkeep tried to nominate his nephew/little brother/son for Adminship and his Arbitrator colleague Primefac is totally in on the resulting cover up once it blew up in his face.

But why bother with such garbage? As I keep saying, the truth of Wikipedia is enough to condemn them totally.

Why even bother telling Banks he can appeal to ArbCom? I mean what the actual fuck? Who seriously believes ANY incarnation of ArbCom would overturn a block which has its origins in the decision making of two of their own? How fucking stupid does that even look, ArbCom potentially reviewing the conduct of their own while not engaged in ArbCom business but lesser functionary business.

I guess at least they won't have the problem of lack of or poorly submitted/documented information necessary to decide such an appeal!

Any incarnation would decline, but especially one where the two involved parties whose decisions they would be reviewing, are the veteran leadership.

[gnngl]

I would conjecture that Banks found something in Tails' Commons uploads that suggests they are a minor.

You don't need to trawl through Commons uploads to figure that out.

[Bbb23sucks]

I would conjecture that Banks found something in Tails' Commons uploads that suggests they are a minor.

You don't need to trawl through Commons uploads to figure that out.

[badmachine]

Do not be surprised if Banks Irk, a content editor for TEN YEARS, gets banned soon. Things like this are typical warning signs.

08:32, 30 December 2023 Primefac talk contribs blocked Banks Irk talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) ({{OversightBlock}}

three days. congratulations to our own personal Nostradamus. :3 🥳