First customer of reformed RfA process not happy

[Bbb23sucks]

ProcrastinatingReader's close was reinstated by Cremastra. The RfA was then courtesy blanked, but that was later reverted.

[Kraken]

Still no edits. Wikipedia might literally have driven a kid to suicide.

But at least they're not inconvenienced.....

if it's necessary then leave such a decision up to crats, especially since candidate never withdrew and given the mess that transpired due to rfa reform leaving it up is arguably more helpful

[Kraken]

Not. Human.

I don't understand why the 'crats appear to be letting non-crats (and non-admins) make decisions about closing the RfA. The latest thing is it's now supposedly closed by a non-crat and another editor blanked the entire RfA as a "courtesy". Courtesy to whom? As far as I can tell, the candidate has never withdrawn; indeed, they haven't edited in over 24 hours. And even if they had withdrawn, say e-mail a 'crat to express their view, why wouldn't a 'crat then close it as withdrawn? And since when do we blank RfAs? I know 'crats often take a hands-off approach to "regulating" RfAs, but this goes way beyond that.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I reverted per above, and to put my onetime bureaucrat hat on, I see no reason to blank it. People are having panic attacks over how mean it is, but actually reading through it, if anything it was pretty tame with a lot of encouragement passed on to the user. It won't be the last one like this with the new rfa reform proposals in place either. Wizardman 23:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

[Bbb23sucks]

Toadette has returned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... adetteEdit

Guess they're not dead after all.

[Kraken]

Wikipediocracy living in opposite land....

Now non-admins feel emboldened to act as non-crats as well, continuing the trend towards total anarchy.

Whoever thought SNOW-closing a discussion before even a single vote was cast would be a good idea is psychopathic.

We all want to live in a world where Bureacrats would stop the Wikipedia mob from killing clueless wannabe Admins so ordinary EXPERIENCED editors do not feel the need to step in, as happened here. What we actually have here is a world where Bureaucrats are indecisive at best, Nihonjoe/Primefac/Andrevan at worst.

[WikiWikiWow]

it feels like being sick fucks is the default on Wikipedia. They either don't see it or lack the courage to step in when they do.

I'd say bit of both. I don't want to go too deep into pop-Psych crap but a lot of Wikipedians behave like bullies. It's the cycle of violence/bullying.

It is not hard to imagine that someone who's been on Wikipedia for over a decade and made hundreds of thousands of edits is not someone who has a lot of friends or a lot going on in their life. In fact, they were probably outcasts who were bullied themselves. While people their age socialized, partied, did stuff, they sat at home, editing Wikipedia.

So now that Wikipedia is the 6th most visited site on the planet, the first result on pretty much all web searches, these socially-broken outcasts feel they have all the power. "Why should those who ignored me and made fun of me for being a nerd now get to have the same power on a website I spent decades on accumulating social capital?"

Now they get to be the bullies, they get to be the "cool kids", the " in crowd". They relish in it, like the petty simpeltons they are. Thus justifying their exclusion from the peer groups in the first place.

Then you have those who aren't bullies, but who are afraid to say anything because they're afraid the bullies will turn on them.

Some of them, like Admin user:Liz, choose to be ignorant of it all, hoping the storm passes quickly and as little people as possible get caught up in it. But ultimately they are absolutely powerless in the face of the Wiki-mob.

WP:LYNCH and WP:LYNCHING would be good Wikipedia essays that explain the mob mentality on Wikipedia. Although something tells me that essay would be deleted.