Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: EricBarbour

Note: I did not take totals for Tag-Team votes because they are extremely messy, and
the votes for Straight Shooter and Cojones are fairly consistent: Alison, Cla68, and Thatcher
have greatly dominated the vote totals, far ahead of anyone else.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

People should take care to differentiate between "total votes" and number of voters. These contests don't have the massive public appeal that the top chart suggests. You have to divide the vote total by the number of voting categories to get an accurate count of voter participation.

Posted by: melloden

I'm surprised Van Haefton is more of a dick than SlimVirgin.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

SlimVirgin's heyday was in the early years of the Review, when the Academy had fewer members.

Posted by: Fusion

I think that this poll suffers from a serious problem. People naturally vote for people they had heard of and bother to do no research. There was a canvassing thread but it was cut short. I could have told you that Fae would win the Dick award before we started, with all the recent threads about him. I did indeed take the trouble to search through WR history. How much coverage has the third place candidate Sandstein had on WR? Very little. And Jmabel, third for straight shooter, has had even less. Have half a dozen threads about them next December and they might win the next awards!

Posted by: thekohser

Fae, as far as I know, was the only candidate to have been critiqued vigorously by the mainstream media. That had something to do with it, too.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Posted by: EricBarbour

Thank you, for pointing out something essential. The DICK awards aren't really for the "worst" Wikipedian, they tend to focus on the most obnoxious one from the past year. People despise Ottava, yet he's generated mountains of good content for them. So why is he #2 in that list? Did he do "harm", or did he just make enemies? Is Wikipedia a "reference work", or a popularity contest?

Perhaps we need a new award, for the Wikipedian who harms the Wikipedia database the most? Quite frankly, most of the people in that list would not qualify, because they've been making good content for it.

(Gerard is a "special case". Show me some "good content" he's written. Go ahead.)

No one ever focuses on the really insane deletionists, patrollers and Facebookers in the admin corps. Some of THOSE bastards actually HAVE harmed Wikipedia. By banning good contributors, by deleting needed articles, and by being generally arrogant and selfish, thus harming Wikipedia's public reputation. Not to mention semi-worthless AN/I trolls like Baseball Bugs, or any number of subtle vandals who have never been caught.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Hmmm... I think I disagree. I think that the most harmful editors are the POV pushers, because they have destroyed the credibility of the project by converting into a WP:SOAPbox for propaganda. They also drive away good contributors whom they regard as their opponents, either by simply annoying them to the breaking point, or conniving to get them banned. Wikipedia doesn't suffer from an article quantity problem, because that would solve itself over a period of time. It's a quality problem.

Posted by: Fusion

Which mainstream media?

Posted by: EricBarbour

That is somewhat true. Yet the craziest POVers have also written good material--biased as it often is,
it could be cleaned up, provided that anyone in the Freak Show really cared. They don't, so it isn't.

I'm thinking of really disgusting slimy characters like Orangemike, Hersfold or MuZemike. People
who block good editors, ruin the thing's reputation, and go around killing good content (most of the
real bastard-admins are also deletionists). I frankly think Orangemike should be tied down and
forcibly medicated. Not administering an "encyclopedia".

No one ever talks about Alexf or Tnxman307, two of the worst blockers, with user-block lists that
go on forever. I know for a fact that they've both blocked hundreds, maybe thousands, of people
improperly, apparently just for the sheer hell of it.

(Alexf is a rabid deletionist. He tries to kill articles that he really should not kill. Evil? Sloppy?
And, http://alexfeldstein.blogspot.com/ is relatively easy to find in the real world. I don't see his name in the DICK award votes.)

Or Ryulong. He screwed a LOT of people, and I don't recall anyone setting things right after he was desysopped.
There are still WP admins who think he is a great, great guy.

Posted by: melloden

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&btnmeta_news_search=1&q=%22ashley+van+haefton%22&oq=%22ashley+van+haefton%22&aq=f&aqi=d1d-o1&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=230149l233801l0l238972l20l20l0l16l0l2l483l1429l2-2.1.1l4l0#hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&sa=X&ei=kF8rT7meGuXE2gXxqISTDw&ved=0CCYQBSgA&q=%22ashley+van+haeften%22&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=e63b32a9d4a42d18&biw=1366&bih=645

Posted by: Zoloft

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&safe=off&source=hp&q=Ashley+Van+Haeften+fae+wikimedia+uk+tied&pbx=1&oq=Ashley+Van+Haeften+fae+wikimedia+uk+tied

Posted by: Cino

Has there been anything written by someone not here on Wikipedia Review? As evidence of anything, this all seems a bit incestuous, frankly.

Posted by: Fusion

There seems to be an elsewhere thread for this. I shall reply there to avoid disrupting this thread.

Posted by: melloden

I don't think you understood the irony there.

Posted by: Zoloft

Mea Culpa.