On 6 Oct 2006, at 04:27, Draicone wrote:
To be honest, I fully agree with you. There are too
many editors, not
just sysops, who feel they are better than the rest. There are too
many sysops, then, taking the wrong decisions and not worrying about
it. And there are too many people following along, taking their word
for it and assuming nothing has gone wrong.
There are a few Admins who don't consider the
consequences of their actions, but there are many
more Admins and editors who are entirely reasonable.
I have explored the system and have not been banned,
it was not initially clear what the limits of "anyone can edit"
and "be bold" were. Perhaps a simple page of exceptions
would be handy. Some of these issues are still being
worked on by the community.
In my RfA, I put forward a strong case for Admins to
behave more like mentors than judges, juries and policemen.
Unfortunately, this was derailed for a completely different
reason - basically a question of whether I had been too
bold. Despite calls for my banning, this has not happened.
In fact, the most unhelpful RfA opposer has since left Wikipedia
- by giving people a hard time, she was given a hard time,
which is never fun.
I do feel there is a tendency for some people to provoke
a marginal situation by ignoring the needs of the out-of-line
users. This can make it worse to the point they feel they can
justify a banning. This is exactly the opposite of the consensus
building we should be striving for. A recent example of this is
the question of notability, where the "obviously right" people
didn't want to discuss the issue with the "I've got a better way"
With a bit of goodwill, the [[WP:NOTABILITY]] page will
work, and people will all have learned to listen a bit more.
Wikipedia is, as you say, broken.
Maybe. But there are many great articles and good
improvements to existing articles every day.
And will I ever be made an Admin? Who can say.