[WikiEN-l] Admin-driven death of Wikipedia: a diatribe

[Redvers @ the Wikipedia]

From: Molu <loom91 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] To: Jimmy Wales - Admin-driven
death of Wikipedia

> If you are unpopular, then you are doing something
> wrong. 

People who whine on about admins and admin abuse
broadly seem to fall into two categories. Either
they're people with an agenda (or a model for the
'pedia that the majority don't support) to push or
they're admin-wannabies who see the post as some sort
of reward and want it for themselves and are
frustrated they don't think they'll get it.

Interestingly, people who criticise Jimbo fall into
similar categories - either they have an agenda to
push or they think they can do a better job of being
figurehead and are frustrated they won't get it.

It's interesting to watch these people in action.
Again, they split into two categories. They're either
the ones demanding someone be de-sysoped for using
her/his judgement, or they're quoting (or misquoting)
rules back to admins and demanding someone be
de-sysoped for not using her/his judgement.

They can be found complaining about articles being
deleted and articles not being deleted. About what
admins said and what admins didn't say. About admins
WP:IARing and admins not WP:IARing. About how admins
are inconsistent and how we all act as a hive. 

They can be found picking over every letter of an
admin's post looking for a tiny violation of a rule
and screaming that an admin has dinged them for
breaking a rule that suddenly doesn't apply to them. 

You can find them, begging your pardon, MSK, screaming
about userboxen rights and unilaterally changing the
graphic in a userbox because they don't agree it
represents certain users, of which they are not one,
correctly (cf {{User Socialist}}). 

They are likely to be found nominating themselves for
admin after 50 edits and being appalled when they are
(usually quite nicely) told to come back later and
carrying userboxen that say "this user doesn't want to
be an admin". They are to be found demanding higher
quality admins but voting "oppose" to all candidates
regardless and to be ignoring RfA completely and then
feeling affronted that they weren't personally
consulted before someone was given extra buttons. They
are to be found demanding penalties for admins'
miniscule transgressing of rules and forgiveness for
their (minor, non-, not really, it doesn't count)
vandalism and POV pushing. They say a wheel war means
a permanent ban for admins, but a revert war between
them and others means that admins have abandoned them
and they were right anyway.

They are to be found spending all evening watching one
admin's edits and crying "stalker" if an admin
nominates two articles by the same person for deletion
in the same month. They are to be found demanding
complete anonymity and trying to tear the shreds of
anonymity away from others. They want every admin
action to be reviewed but their own actions ignored or
buried. They want others to do all the work and want
articles reserved for them only to edit.

What amazes me is how these people can represent
either or both of these views depending on what they
feel will get them an advantage that moment. How they
can dismiss Wikipedia as meaningless, then spend hours
on a bloody forum devoted to how meaningless Wikipedia
is. How they can demand perfection at all times from
admins whilst demanding everyone ignore their own
failings.

How they are completely unable to get the hint that
their complete inability to fit into a community that
celebrates diversity and eccentricity is indicative of
a problem /they/ have, not a problem that Wikipedia
has. How they had the choice of contributing to an
open free encyclopedia or a UBB forum for nutjobs with
an agenda, and they chose the latter *because they
didn't fit in to the open encyclopedia*.

Above all, I remain gobsmacked how these people can
fail to get anywhere in a community, fail to make
friends, fail to write articles that prosper, fail to
be trusted by the community with two extra buttons,
fail to make anything of their freely-given time on
Wikipedia other than to be banned, bemoaned or
generally be wished away by their fellow editors, how
they can go through all of this and *still* use
sockpuppets to try to contribute, subscribe to the
mailing lists, visit IRC and generally hang about like
a bad smell rather than doing what rational people
would do and find another bloody hobby! One day,
Wikipedia may eclipse the internet. Until then, there
are some 3 billion other places to waste others' time
that they could be checking out.

If nothing else, don't they realise that they're
driving admins to cabal, that they're creating more
people who agree with the status quo, that they are
having *exactly* the opposite affect to the one they
seem to want?

And don't get me started on the actions of
[[User:WR-Recruiter]] and the like, busy writing to
the total mentalists, the tiny unstable minority who
detonate when asked their opinion or find themselves
disagreed with on an obscure talk page. If they're
actively recruiting from that particular gene pool,
it's no wonder they attract stalkers, shitbags and
specials.

The company you keep often tells more about you than
you do yourself, I find.

-> REDVERS





		
___________________________________________________________ 
The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html