On 5/30/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
The other reason the alleged Trojan admins like building up edits fighting vandals is that it involves minimal talk-page interaction, which means they leave less of a distinctive "voice," making it harder to identify them.
Maybe, but I can think of a lot of other reasons. For instance, it's easy compared to writing new articles. It's not something that requires concentration or long periods of effort. It doesn't require writing skills. And it avoids interpersonal contact, which is more of an issue on-line than a lot of people realize. Your explanations are too speculative.
It doesn't avoid interpersonal contact at all because the persistant vandals just engage you.
There's so much crap and vandalism on Wikipedia that editors who monitor crap are much needed. Why hassle people and make everyone fit your mold of the ideal administrator? You shoved an hypothetical down his throat knowing full well what his answer would be: [[WP:POINT]]
What makes Wikipedia work is the great diversity of people editing it, not that everyone is editing it exactly how I think it should be edited. I learn more from being wrong on Wikipedia, from watching and editing people I would never associate with if paid to, and from the general diversity of people it takes to create an encyclopedia than I'd ever learn from any other community on the web.
If you want every administrator to think exactly alike program a bot and do away with administrators--interacting with human beings will always require the ability to think outside of the fake confines of artificial situations thrust at you simply for the sake of forcing you to declare a stance on an issue personal to the thruster. Weren't bots voted down as administrators? Nothing mattered but that Gracenotes wouldn't bow down to your stance totally on this one issue, that he couldn't be made to say, "Yes, Sir," I will, no matter what, support you 100% on issues that have not even arisen yet, but that you hypothesize just to get me to agree with you."
This was not about a competent editor becoming an administrator and it shows precisely that administration is not only a BIG DEAL it's a HUGE DEAL--because you can't be an administrator unless and until you toe an artificial hypothetical line that someone tosses at you.
I totally agree with not posting attack sites on Wikipedia--only the Pashtuns host their enemies. But I don't think the way you are going about the issue, by making it a primary issue for adminship--either they agree with you totally, without thinking, without recourse to their own brains, or you're going to fight their adminship tooth and nail.
You should have brought it up elsewhere and got community consensus and made policy about it, instead of making a show of one adminship, making one guy your fall guy on the issue for failing to agree in advance with everything you might ever consider appropriate on the issue.
KP