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" person.
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.