[WikiEN-l] You're magically made an admin. I'd just leave.

[K P]

On 5/9/07, David Goodman <dgoodmanny at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What concerns me is that we might find some FA candidates in there.
> Can we think of an algorithm? DGG


There won't be an FA articles in there.  Although AfD is for articles that
shouldn't be in the encyclopedia, it is used, in general, to try to get
poorly written and poorly resourced articles booted out of Wikipedia. FAs
have to be well-researched and resourced.

I have to give up on Wikipedia, probably just a break, but maybe for good.
I think all of the balance on Wikipedia belongs to the vandals, and none to
editors trying to improve Wikipedia or trying to make it what it was
intended to be.  I find many of the administrators I deal with on Wikipedia
to be arbitrary and capricious.

The last straw was an administrator who permanently banned a user for
"Simply wearing out everyone's patience" based upon a request by two users
who got banned for harrassing this and another user.[
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Kdkatpir2
]

Then, the same administartor, who can block someone just because he/she's
having a bad day, decides not to block an account that has done nothing but
vandalize Wikipedia [
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=128756438],
costing Wikipedia an excellent editor (one of the few taxonomists on
Wikipedia).  Topped off with a brainless reply by another admin who is
actively encouraging ticked off editors to leave Wikipedia, and seems to
think the whole thing is about the use of the word poop [
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AAdministrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=128781021&oldid=128777442].
It's not, it's about the high preference given to vandals over solid
contributers by a number of admins with precisely this attitude: if you get
irritated at vandals, you're just not tolerant of poop.

It's not this one incident, it's that Wikipedia is biased towards the
vandals.  All the discussion about whether or not to credential certain
users is worthless if Wikipedia has administrators who actively encourage
research scientists and qualified technical researchers to leave, so that
one child vandal who has done nothing but vandalize Wikipedia accounts, can
be encouraged to stay and contribute.

And, please notice, neither of the administrators so gung ho on Curtis and I
leaving, ever bothered to take their BS about encouraging folks to
contribute positively to the vandal's page to ask him to stay.  It's simply
empty rhetoric espousing a viewpoint that neither admin even practices,
except to encourage scientific knowledge to leave Wikipedia as being less
useful than a 7-year-old who has added poopy to 16 articles.

KP