Who is the worst Wiki Admin Options Rating

[victim of censorship]

I like to start a survey on who is the worst Wikipedian admin.

I will start the list with my good friend

Gamaliel (T-C-L-K-R-D) , as well as Ryulong (T-C-L-K-R-D)

This should a list of the bad actors of Wikipedia. The world should
know their names.

[CharlotteWebb]

Ryanpostlethwaite

[Malleus]

How are we defining "worst" here? The one I most dislike, the most incompetent, the most abusive ...

[victim of censorship]

How are we defining "worst" here? The one I most dislike, the most incompetent, the most abusive ...

All of the above. I consider abusive a prime trait.

This post has been edited by victim of censorship:

[Malleus]

How are we defining "worst" here? The one I most dislike, the most incompetent, the most abusive ...

All of the above. I consider Abusive a prime trait.

Abusive is in the eye of the beholder. I'm far happier with a tell-it-like-it-is admin like Tan39 than I am with the creepy Chillum, for instance.

[TungstenCarbide]

How are we defining "worst" here? The one I most dislike, the most incompetent, the most abusive ...

All of the above. I consider Abusive a prime trait.

Abusive is in the eye of the beholder. I'm far happier with a tell-it-like-it-is admin like Tan39 than I am with the creepy Chillum, for instance.

seconded. and I'll add georgewillaimherbert

[RMHED]

I like to start a survey on who is the worst Wikipedian admin.

I will start the list with my good friend

Gamaliel (T-C-L-K-R-D) , as well as Ryulong (T-C-L-K-R-D)

This should a list of the bad actors of Wikipedia. The world should
know their names.

They're all irritating fucktards, it's just a question of degree.

[Ryulong]

I like to start a survey on who is the worst Wikipedian admin.

I will start the list with my good friend

Gamaliel (T-C-L-K-R-D) , as well as Ryulong (T-C-L-K-R-D)

This should a list of the bad actors of Wikipedia. The world should
know their names.

The problem with this post is that I haven't been an admin for nearly a year now.

So clearly Joe's logic is as flawed as his grammar on this site.

I also fully expect a response to this post by Joe to include this bad grammar that I describe as well as some sort of image or YouTube video which he feels will make his point moreso than the vitriolic prose that he'll accompany it with.

On the other websites I visit, this previous statement would usually be prefaced with "inb4".

This post has been edited by Ryulong:

[EricBarbour]

The problem with this post is that I haven't been an admin for nearly a year now.

So clearly Joe's logic is as flawed as his grammar on this site.

But that doesn't mean you don't suck. Still. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[Ryulong]

The problem with this post is that I haven't been an admin for nearly a year now.

So clearly Joe's logic is as flawed as his grammar on this site.

But that doesn't mean you don't suck. Still. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

Oh noes. You have brought up a thread I started in which I ask for assistance in stoping a vandal who has access to dynamic IP address assignment. However shall I defend myself or make some sort of smart retort on the frivolity of your discovery?

Oh wait.
(IMG:http://i46.tinypic.com/2zfrg9k.jpg)

This post has been edited by Ryulong:

[everyking]

The problem with this post is that I haven't been an admin for nearly a year now.

So clearly Joe's logic is as flawed as his grammar on this site.

I also fully expect a response to this post by Joe to include this bad grammar that I describe as well as some sort of image or YouTube video which he feels will make his point moreso than the vitriolic prose that he'll accompany it with.

On the other websites I visit, this previous statement would usually be prefaced with "inb4".

Ah, Ryulong. You've got to admit, you did make some curious decisions in your admin days. Remember the time you were blocking accounts that hadn't been making a sufficient number of mainspace edits, and then you just happened to (unwittingly) do it to an admin, leading you to profusely apologize? That was some pretty funny stuff. And how did you end up losing adminship, anyway?

[gomi]

I like to start a survey on who is the worst Wikipedian admin.

The problem with this post is that I haven't been an admin for nearly a year now.

I feel obliged to point out that the WP:DICK of Distinction award pageant, recently completed for 2009, is focused precisely on this issue.

Vis. Ryulong's lack of a current bit, I wonder whether the question is recent abuse of power, or total, lpng-term damage. I would argue that for all-time damage and abusiveness, Jayjg (T-C-L-K-R-D) 's combination of abuse of power with propaganda-pushing makes him a leading candidate, even though he's barely used his bit in the last year and is now banned from his domain of interest.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I like to start a survey on who is the worst Wikipedian admin.

At a certain point, this becomes like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The array of admin abuses at Wikipedia is a never-ending source of wonder, a kaleidoscopic display of all that is venal and treacherous in human interaction. Once a year, with the DICK of Distinction awards, we attempt to take a sort of snapshot out of the continual flux of admin abuse, but we should not assume that we have captured the true essence of what can only be properly conceived as a truly transcendent pile of dog shit.

[Tarc]

Jayjg, hands fucking down. Though he is now banned from his primary arena.

[victim of censorship]

I like to start a survey on who is the worst Wikipedian admin.

I will start the list with my good friend

Gamaliel (T-C-L-K-R-D) , as well as Ryulong (T-C-L-K-R-D)

This should a list of the bad actors of Wikipedia. The world should
know their names.

The problem with this post is that I haven't been an admin for nearly a year now.

So clearly Joe's logic is as flawed as his grammar on this site.

I also fully expect a response to this post by Joe to include this bad grammar that I describe as well as some sort of image or YouTube video which he feels will make his point moreso than the vitriolic prose that he'll accompany it with.

On the other websites I visit, this previous statement would usually be prefaced with "inb4".

And your you have a bad heart and soul... Your a sociopath.

I like to start a survey on who is the worst Wikipedian admin.

The problem with this post is that I haven't been an admin for nearly a year now.

I feel obliged to point out that the WP:DICK of Distinction award pageant, recently completed for 2009, is focused precisely on this issue.

Vis. Ryulong's lack of a current bit, I wonder whether the question is recent abuse of power, or total, lpng-term damage. I would argue that for all-time damage and abusiveness, Jayjg (T-C-L-K-R-D) 's combination of abuse of power with propaganda-pushing makes him a leading candidate, even though he's barely used his bit in the last year and is now banned from his domain of interest.

The issue of "Dick" ves "worst" I think there is a difference.

[Ryulong]

And your you have a bad heart and soul... Your a sociopath.

And you do not disappoint. Except for the lack of a relevant image and/or song on YouTube.

[victim of censorship]

And your you have a bad heart and soul... Your a sociopath.

And you do not disappoint. Except for the lack of a relevant image and/or song on YouTube.

That, coming from a gutless little man child, I consider that a compliment.

[One]

VoC rants and raves about Gamaliel, but he also rants and raves about Obama. My primitive heuristics cannot determine how I should process this information.

VoC, are you a chemist?

[Kwork]

Jayjg, hands fucking down. Though he is now banned from his primary arena.

Is it necessary to be an administrator to be nominated? Because, Bro Tark, I would be happy to nominate you for the dick of the year. I am sure you have done as much as any WP editor to earn it.

But, if everyone just nominates the editors who got in his/her way, it becomes a political vote that has only marginal meaning for WP. In fact, it seems to me that the whole idea just feeds the problem of WP as a political battleground.

[Lar]

Jayjg, hands fucking down. Though he is now banned from his primary arena.

Is it necessary to be an administrator to be nominated? Because, Bro Tark, I would be happy to nominate you for the dick of the year. I am sure you have done as much as any WP editor to earn it.

But, if everyone just nominates the editors who got in his/her way, it becomes a political vote that has only marginal meaning for WP. In fact, it seems to me that the whole idea just feeds the problem of WP as a political battleground.

Your previous strenuous defense of Jayjg during the case where he was stripped of his OV, CU and access to the functionaries mailing list is hereby noted.

[Kwork]

Jayjg, hands fucking down. Though he is now banned from his primary arena.

Is it necessary to be an administrator to be nominated? Because, Bro Tark, I would be happy to nominate you for the dick of the year. I am sure you have done as much as any WP editor to earn it.

But, if everyone just nominates the editors who got in his/her way, it becomes a political vote that has only marginal meaning for WP. In fact, it seems to me that the whole idea just feeds the problem of WP as a political battleground.

Your previous strenuous defense of Jayjg during the case where he was stripped of his OV, CU and access to the functionaries mailing list is hereby noted.

I argued against arbcom topic banning anyone from the group of articles under question, no matter which side of the issues they were on. I still feel that topic banning of those editors was a mistake. I also argued that removing Jayjg's oversight and checkuser privileges was irrational because there was not even an accusation that he had misused them.

[Somey]

Oh noes. You have brought up a thread I started in which I ask for assistance in stoping a vandal who has access to dynamic IP address assignment. However shall I defend myself or make some sort of smart retort on the frivolity of your discovery?

You have to admit, that's a better rejoinder than some of the ones Mr. Ryulong made while he was still an admin. More evidence that disengagement from Wikipedia improves personal wit and intelligence! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Still, the image had a misspelling in it that didn't appear to be intentional...

[Milton Roe]

Ryanpostlethwaite

There is something to be said for that vote. He should go up for the coveted DICK award.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...Requests.2FCase

The humanity of his typical posts....

Your statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case
Your statement on the requests for arbitration page is currently over 700 words long. The word limit is 500. Please refactor it to bring it within the 500 word limit within 24 hours or it will be removed completely. You're more than welcome to write a longer statement in your userspace and link to it from the arbitration page. Regards, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't he sweet?

[Peter Damian]

The dop-addict 'Chillum '. I cannot believe how anyone can behave like this

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

I leave a message on a friend's page, and this c-nt reverts it (at least Paul August decently reverted back).

Postlethwaite also deserves a prize.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[KD Tries Again]

Unbelievable.

[CharlotteWebb]

(cur) (prev) 21:12, 6 March 2010 Chillum (talk | contribs) m (47,810 bytes) (Reverted edits by Logic Historian (talk) to last version by HistorianofLogic) (undo)

Yeah, he's clearly playing favorites there.

Your previous strenuous defense of Jayjg during the case where he was stripped of his OV, CU and access to the functionaries mailing list is hereby noted.

Your well-poisoning abuse of the passive voice is hereby noted.

I also argued that removing Jayjg's oversight and checkuser privileges was irrational because there was not even an accusation that he had misused them.

Apparently he misused them by edit-warring and joking about beer (which exists distinctly from the aforepoisoned באר). Yes, that's B-E-E-R as in Ice Cold Beer (which, in middle America, tastes much like Sweet Blue Water apart from the carbonation).

But, how hard could it have been to cite a specific incident or two and give the community some general fucking idea which abuses of checkuser/oversight access (or accumulations thereof) are actual grounds for removal?

Arbcom has already established that disclosing a user's (ehh…) non-standard browser configuration during an RFA is not on one of them. Neither is discovering a user's various former accounts, revealing these to one's spouse (even when one's spouse was is active WP editor), and somehow using it as a pre-text to checkuser unrelated users who are not among said former accounts.

Some of us would like to know how arbcom actually decides things like this, yet they refuse to answer straightforwardly, instead feeding us a bunch of bullshit about decorum and certain edits being "within permissible bounds for an admin, but not for a functionary".

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[KD Tries Again]

(cur) (prev) 21:12, 6 March 2010 Chillum (talk | contribs) m (47,810 bytes) (Reverted edits by Logic Historian (talk) to last version by HistorianofLogic) (undo)

Yeah, he's clearly playing favorites there.

My best understanding currently is that Chillum is in favor of letting edits by a sock puppet to a main space article stand, while reverting edits made by the same sock puppet to other editors' Talk Pages. His (or her) grounds for the latter is that the edits were made by a banned editor, and banned editors can't edit. Unless they are improving a main space article, of course.

[Ryulong]

Still, the image had a misspelling in it that didn't appear to be intentional...

I wasn't the one to add the text to the image in the first place, so I cannot be held for that error.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Your previous strenuous defense of Jayjg during the case where he was stripped of his OV, CU and access to the functionaries mailing list is hereby noted.

I argued against arbcom topic banning anyone from the group of articles under question, no matter which side of the issues they were on. I still feel that topic banning of those editors was a mistake. I also argued that removing Jayjg's oversight and checkuser privileges was irrational because there was not even an accusation that he had misused them.

Perhaps not amongst the on-Wiki Admin caste.

IMHO, anyone who is such an obviously driven POV-warrior should also be de-sysopped and put on an even footing with the WikiPeons whom he is prone to abuse.

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

The term "Worst" does indeed need to be defined.
Worst in abuse? Corruption? People skills? Perverting the general goals and mission of WP to their own ends?
Worst currently or ever?
Does King James count? He is an admin, after all.
And he also played a major role in fostering the festering culture of the adminion corp(se).

If you mean admins I personally dislike, well that is a long and growing list that includes many of the usual suspects.

[powercorrupts]

For me at the moment it is TenofallTrades - a truly miserable all-round git, and FencesandWindows - just a typical helpyourbuddy/maimtheeditor/refusetoaknowledgehim git - but a particularly obnoxious example.

Stifle always seems to pop up being unimpressive.

Admin are so bad at the moment this thread could really inflate. Some may have good points - but who cares? I honestly don't think the system will last the year. Something's got to give.

[Malleus]

(cur) (prev) 21:12, 6 March 2010 Chillum (talk | contribs) m (47,810 bytes) (Reverted edits by Logic Historian (talk) to last version by HistorianofLogic) (undo)

Yeah, he's clearly playing favorites there.

My best understanding currently is that Chillum is in favor of letting edits by a sock puppet to a main space article stand, while reverting edits made by the same sock puppet to other editors' Talk Pages. His (or her) grounds for the latter is that the edits were made by a banned editor, and banned editors can't edit. Unless they are improving a main space article, of course.

Chillum is an idiot. His opinion is worth spit.

[everyking]

For me at the moment it is TenofallTrades - a truly miserable all-round git, and FencesandWindows - just a typical helpyourbuddy/maimtheeditor/refusetoaknowledgehim git - but a particularly obnoxious example.

Stifle always seems to pop up being unimpressive.

Admin are so bad at the moment this thread could really inflate. Some may have good points - but who cares? I honestly don't think the system will last the year. Something's got to give.

Compared to four or five years ago, the system works beautifully and admins are acting like veritable saints. There is a sense of rules, fairness, and responsibility that simply did not exist several years ago, around the time this forum was set up. Abusive admins actually feel community pressure now, and the ArbCom will actually take action now. Yeah, TenOfAllTrades is obnoxious--but is he abusive?

[jd turk]

According to his talk page, Chillum is now retired after yet another round of hilarity with a good content/lousy civility editor.

[Peter Damian]

According to his talk page, Chillum is now retired after yet another round of hilarity with a good content/lousy civility editor.

Not even a lousy civility editor. I know "KD Tries again" in real life (from about 25 years ago). He is one of the most consistently polite human beings I have met. He was simply complaining, in his polite way, about Chillum deleting a message from his talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...Talk_Page_alone

[powercorrupts]

For me at the moment it is TenofallTrades - a truly miserable all-round git, and FencesandWindows - just a typical helpyourbuddy/maimtheeditor/refusetoaknowledgehim git - but a particularly obnoxious example.

Stifle always seems to pop up being unimpressive.

Admin are so bad at the moment this thread could really inflate. Some may have good points - but who cares? I honestly don't think the system will last the year. Something's got to give.

Compared to four or five years ago, the system works beautifully and admins are acting like veritable saints. There is a sense of rules, fairness, and responsibility that simply did not exist several years ago, around the time this forum was set up. Abusive admins actually feel community pressure now, and the ArbCom will actually take action now. Yeah, TenOfAllTrades is obnoxious--but is he abusive?

But why compare to 5 years ago? I had my nose turned up then, like half the intelligent word still does (a lot less intelligence) now. I'm only concerned with what with what Wikipedia is.

It's the 'spirit of Wikipedia' that gets abused. We cannot do anything about editors ignoring it, but the idea is that admin aren't supposed to. Showing bad faith in the editor you've never met before, putting your "POV" (from emotionalism to subject bias) before the central policies. Failing to be friendly before threatening. Ignoring clear consensus when you are supposed to remind people of it. Not even believing that it's your job to be a 'Wikipedian' before anything else. Simply not behaving like an admin.

Most abuses will be over POV protection, and either won't be seen, or cannot be proved. The only way to get around that is to try and make admin who believe in Wikipedia and we can trust. But admin promote admin that kiss arse.

There is no way for anyone to (esp without prejudice) call an admin up on the 'little things', or even the medium and large things. Editors are not allowed to 'warn' admin (for TenofAllTrades, to warn and not 'move' on it is a strike against your name, that makes you disruptive if you dare to do it to others too). Only the seriously high profile crimes eventually get punished on Wikipedia. To chase an admin up over anything less is to endanger your account. If you piss off too many admin, and you are anything less than a model editor, you have seriously compromised your account. That naturally leads to account changing, but do enough admin really care? It's a corrupt system. It's so obvious I don't even know why I'm writing all this right now. We need fixed terms at very least.

[Peter Damian]

The term "Worst" does indeed need to be defined.

What makes a bad debt collector? I am strong believer in the principle that people divide into basic personality types, and that these determine what job they are useful at. Some people like repetitive monotonous routine type work, and get upset when you try and give them more rewarding and useful work. That's fine, because you need people to do the monotonous work. Some people don't have an original thought in their heads, but possess finely-honed analytical skills. That's fine, they will be good accountants and auditors. A good debt collector is one who can be as menacing and threatening as possible without actually breaking the law. A bad one is one who doesn't get the money back. And so on.

Some people have no other happiness than to ensure that members of the public abide by a certain set of rules. The rules don't matter to them: it is their job to make sure that they are followed. Think of the scary official characters you meet at an airport. If you step over that yellow line which is exactly five feet in front of the passport-checking booth, you know what happens. If there is one small mistake in the way you filled in the 10-page landing form, God help you.

Wikipedia admins fall in the latter class, don't they? Law/security enforcement officers. They don't need to be smart, they just need to battle constantly against the hordes of people who want to step over the yellow line. They don't care if the person is a terrorist/teenage vandal, or a responsible member of the public who simply got the rules wrong.

So, what makes a bad admin? Nothing. Admins have to be the way they are, because the personality type attracted to the job (likes a badge, likes enforcing rules on reluctant people, dealing-with-crowds mentality) is best suited to the way that Wikipedia is set up. A system that tries to build a project using 'anyone who can edit' is bound to end up in exactly that way.

I have said it many times. It's not the people, it's the system.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Peter Damian]

Does anyone know why it is that the really bad types all get a 'Awesome Wikipedian' present from Rlevse? E.g. TenofAllTrades a few days ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=347109850

I've often pondered on the logic of why people get these (Haiduc got one, e.g.). What are they for?

[thekohser]

According to his talk page, Chillum is now retired after yet another round of hilarity with a good content/lousy civility editor.

Chillum says:

Because the community has been consistently failing to protect its members from abuse, and because those that do attempt to prevent such abuse are treated so hostile I am out of here.

Such a command of the English language, it's a loss for Wikipedia.

[powercorrupts]

Does anyone know why it is that the really bad types all get a 'Awesome Wikipedian' present from Rlevse? E.g. TenofAllTrades a few days ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=347109850

I've often pondered on the logic of why people get these (Haiduc got one, e.g.). What are they for?

It's co-op gaming. What else? The first time I saw the Day bollocks (a few years ago now I think) I was genuinely taken in - ie I thought the admin must be a seriously good one.

I've actually questioned Rleves about giving these, but too indirectly, and he studiously missed the irony. When I saw the one awarded to Tenofall while he was being such a relentless cock at CDA, I was tempted just to take the whole 'Your own Awesome Wikipedian Day' award to RfC as a "a bad, gameable and generally anti-Wikiepdian idea". It's not really the climate though, esp if you have just been accused of complaining too much for having the gall to take on more than one admin at once.

I've always distrusted barnstars, beyond the 'original' one given for a decent reason I suppose. I saw two obvious socks award them to each other once. An admin was given one once for unblocking me from his own block - an award for rectifying a untenably bad knee-jerk decision, that he proudly displays in an Award List that shows no indication of why it was given it at all. He unblocked with a real power trippy caveat too. I think there will be a 'tipping point' in Wikipedia's evolution, where enough editors have been round long enough to just be simply too tired of the way things stand.

[Eva Destruction]

Does anyone know why it is that the really bad types all get a 'Awesome Wikipedian' present from Rlevse? E.g. TenofAllTrades a few days ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=347109850

I've often pondered on the logic of why people get these (Haiduc got one, e.g.). What are they for?

The full list is here. I am trying to think of what criteria he's using that would encompass myself, Coldplay Expert (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Orangemike (T-C-L-K-R-D) and Bedford (T-C-L-K-R-D) within a month of each other, but am thus far failing.

[Peter Damian]

On the subject of 'Chillum' again, does anyone understand Malleus' cryptic remark here?

::*Chillum does seem to be such a delicate flower; happy to dish it out, but not at all keen to take it. Some may indeed wonder why he's so often at the centre of these stupid and childish "civility" spats, but not me. I know why, and it ain't pretty. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 14:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=348331299

What exactly does he claim to know? Or was just rhetorical?

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Some people have no other happiness than to ensure that members of the public abide by a certain set of rules. The rules don't matter to them: it is their job to make sure that they are followed. Think of the scary official characters you meet at an airport. If you step over that yellow line which is exactly five feet in front of the passport-checking booth, you know what happens. If there is one small mistake in the way you filled in the 10-page landing form, God help you.

Wikipedia admins fall in the latter class, don't they? Law/security enforcement officers. They don't need to be smart, they just need to battle constantly against the hordes of people who want to step over the yellow line.

Bad analogy. They are more like the burly guys who guard the doors at exclusive nightclubs, selecting those few who will be invited in. So in a sense, they are the ones who choose, on the basis of the "house POV," those who will be permitted to step over the yellow line, because Wikipedia rules are nothing if not flexible.

It's the 'spirit of Wikipedia' that gets abused. We cannot do anything about editors ignoring it, but the idea is that admin aren't supposed to. Showing bad faith in the editor you've never met before, putting your "POV" (from emotionalism to subject bias) before the central policies. Failing to be friendly before threatening. Ignoring clear consensus when you are supposed to remind people of it. Not even believing that it's your job to be a 'Wikipedian' before anything else. Simply not behaving like an admin.

That last line is a non sequitur.

[KD Tries Again]

According to his talk page, Chillum is now retired after yet another round of hilarity with a good content/lousy civility editor.

Not even a lousy civility editor. I know "KD Tries again" in real life (from about 25 years ago). He is one of the most consistently polite human beings I have met. He was simply complaining, in his polite way, about Chillum deleting a message from his talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...Talk_Page_alone

I am a paragon.

The present case overlooks the possibility that conduct as well as discourse can be uncivil. As far as I can see, Chillum unilaterally deleted content from some twenty editors' talk pages yesterday, without introduction, explanation or apology. That strikes me as both unusual and uncivil. Nor was he able to offer a coherent reason when challenged.

Personally, I thought Chillum's "you don't own your talk page" significantly ruder than Malleus's "waste of space." But maybe that is because it was aimed at me.

[Malleus]

According to his talk page, Chillum is now retired after yet another round of hilarity with a good content/lousy civility editor.

If only.

[Peter Damian]

According to his talk page, Chillum is now retired after yet another round of hilarity with a good content/lousy civility editor.

If only.

My first ever block (after 4 years on the project) was by 'Chillum' (then 'High in BC'). March 4 2007, three years ago. He 'retired' in a huff after Bishonen unblocked me.

It all went horribly wrong for Damian after that, didn't it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Cedric]

I like to start a survey on who is the worst Wikipedian admin.

At a certain point, this becomes like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The array of admin abuses at Wikipedia is a never-ending source of wonder, a kaleidoscopic display of all that is venal and treacherous in human interaction. Once a year, with the DICK of Distinction awards, we attempt to take a sort of snapshot out of the continual flux of admin abuse, but we should not assume that we have captured the true essence of what can only be properly conceived as a truly transcendent pile of dog shit.

Indeed. If one focuses on the personal qualities that go into making an abusive admin and uses that as the metric, you are actually more likely to come up with the name of a not very well known admin than a truly notorious one.

Der Autobahnenfuehrer ("Rschen7754"), who I encountered through a brief tiff three years ago, serves as an excellent case in point. Amongst the young wiki-dicky admins of Wikipedia, you are very unlikely to encounter anyone more anal retentive, ill-tempered, combative, controlling, quick to assume bad faith, unconsciously self-parodying, or inflexible (as even his "on-wiki" friends admit) as is he. Indeed, on a Google search for "teenage mutant wiki admin", his userpage is the number one hit. Still, I see no indication that he is that well-known on WP outside of the admin corps, and is probably not much better known here. The question is why.

The answer, as it turns out, is simple: he is doing practically nothing to live up to his rather considerable Hasten The Day!™ potential. Instead of engaging in ba-telle and general drama-whoring all over "the wiki" like Durova, he spends nearly all of his "on wiki" time and energies tending to his little walled garden on WP, i.e., the "WikiProject U.S. Roads" and the road articles that they WP:OWN. As self-appointed and largely unchallenged Autobahnenfuehrer, he has drained the road articles of even what little color or controversy a road article might otherwise have. You rarely if ever read of kickbacks, rigged bidding, routing controversies, construction/repair delays, or appalling cost overruns. A brief paragraph on a dangerous curve is about as close as they ever get to controversy. Indeed, one of his gauleiters has openly exulted in the fact that WP road articles are nearly completely devoid of any information that the general motoring public would find interesting or useful.

For every truly notorious abusive admin of WP, there must be at least three or four equally abusive but utterly uninteresting wiki-wonk admins not unlike Der Autobahnenfuehrer. He is truly one of the greyest of all the little grey men of WP. What a waste! At one time, I had such high hopes for the boy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

[powercorrupts]

I like to start a survey on who is the worst Wikipedian admin.

At a certain point, this becomes like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The array of admin abuses at Wikipedia is a never-ending source of wonder, a kaleidoscopic display of all that is venal and treacherous in human interaction. Once a year, with the DICK of Distinction awards, we attempt to take a sort of snapshot out of the continual flux of admin abuse, but we should not assume that we have captured the true essence of what can only be properly conceived as a truly transcendent pile of dog shit.

Indeed. If one focuses on the personal qualities that go into making an abusive admin and uses that as the metric, you are actually more likely to come up with the name of a not very well known admin than a truly notorious one.

Der Autobahnenfuehrer ("Rschen7754"), who I encountered through a brief tiff three years ago, serves as an excellent case in point. Amongst the young wiki-dicky admins of Wikipedia, you are very unlikely to encounter anyone more anal retentive, ill-tempered, combative, controlling, quick to assume bad faith, unconsciously self-parodying, or inflexible (as even his "on-wiki" friends admit) as is he. Indeed, on a Google search for "teenage mutant wiki admin", his userpage is the number one hit. Still, I see no indication that he is that well-known on WP outside of the admin corps, and is probably not much better known here. The question is why.

The answer, as it turns out, is simple: he is doing practically nothing to live up to his rather considerable Hasten The Day!™ potential. Instead of engaging in ba-telle and general drama-whoring all over "the wiki" like Durova, he spends nearly all of his "on wiki" time and energies tending to his little walled garden on WP, i.e., the "WikiProject U.S. Roads" and the road articles that they WP:OWN. As self-appointed and largely unchallenged Autobahnenfuehrer, he has drained the road articles of even what little color or controversy a road article might otherwise have. You rarely if ever read of kickbacks, rigged bidding, routing controversies, construction/repair delays, or appalling cost overruns. A brief paragraph on a dangerous curve is about as close as they ever get to controversy. Indeed, one of his gauleiters has openly exulted in the fact that WP road articles are nearly completely devoid of any information that the general motoring public would find interesting or useful.

For every truly notorious abusive admin of WP, there must be at least three or four equally abusive but utterly uninteresting wiki-wonk admins not unlike Der Autobahnenfuehrer. He is truly one of the greyest of all the little grey men of WP. What a waste! At one time, I had such high hopes for the boy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

There is a strong impression sometimes that there are a set number of notorious admin in existence who are too politically strong to be desysopped - I think the unknown admin can be obscured by this sometimes. To a degree, it comes from here as well as WP. At the RfC on Community de-Adminship, the oppose voters (and largely admin) are often saying that there are always a just a 'notorious few' bad admin the current system is able to deal with them. I don't agree with CDA (we need to fix the root of the problems), but the truth is that scores if not hundreds of admin will be potentially under fire. When they are given the bit, admin, within a few easily-learnt boundaries, can pretty much do what they want.

[Peter Damian]

I like to start a survey on who is the worst Wikipedian admin.

At a certain point, this becomes like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The array of admin abuses at Wikipedia is a never-ending source of wonder, a kaleidoscopic display of all that is venal and treacherous in human interaction. Once a year, with the DICK of Distinction awards, we attempt to take a sort of snapshot out of the continual flux of admin abuse, but we should not assume that we have captured the true essence of what can only be properly conceived as a truly transcendent pile of dog shit.

Indeed. If one focuses on the personal qualities that go into making an abusive admin and uses that as the metric, you are actually more likely to come up with the name of a not very well known admin than a truly notorious one.

Der Autobahnenfuehrer ("Rschen7754"), who I encountered through a brief tiff three years ago, serves as an excellent case in point. Amongst the young wiki-dicky admins of Wikipedia, you are very unlikely to encounter anyone more anal retentive, ill-tempered, combative, controlling, quick to assume bad faith, unconsciously self-parodying, or inflexible (as even his "on-wiki" friends admit) as is he. Indeed, on a Google search for "teenage mutant wiki admin", his userpage is the number one hit. Still, I see no indication that he is that well-known on WP outside of the admin corps, and is probably not much better known here. The question is why.

The answer, as it turns out, is simple: he is doing practically nothing to live up to his rather considerable Hasten The Day!™ potential. Instead of engaging in ba-telle and general drama-whoring all over "the wiki" like Durova, he spends nearly all of his "on wiki" time and energies tending to his little walled garden on WP, i.e., the "WikiProject U.S. Roads" and the road articles that they WP:OWN. As self-appointed and largely unchallenged Autobahnenfuehrer, he has drained the road articles of even what little color or controversy a road article might otherwise have. You rarely if ever read of kickbacks, rigged bidding, routing controversies, construction/repair delays, or appalling cost overruns. A brief paragraph on a dangerous curve is about as close as they ever get to controversy. Indeed, one of his gauleiters has openly exulted in the fact that WP road articles are nearly completely devoid of any information that the general motoring public would find interesting or useful.

For every truly notorious abusive admin of WP, there must be at least three or four equally abusive but utterly uninteresting wiki-wonk admins not unlike Der Autobahnenfuehrer. He is truly one of the greyest of all the little grey men of WP. What a waste! At one time, I had such high hopes for the boy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Thank you Cedric. This was very funny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Triadian...oadfan_paradise

[A Horse With No Name]

Worst as in...personality? Track record? Judgment? All of the above?

One admin that I came in contact with, both on-Wiki and off-Wiki, was (I believe) mentally ill. Fortunately, that individual is no longer active on WP -- and the less that is said about that poor soul, the better. (The last thing I want is that person returning because of my comments.)

For those who are active, I would say that Risker is probably the ultimate waste of Wiki-space.

[RMHED]

I like to start a survey on who is the worst Wikipedian admin.

I will start the list with my good friend

Gamaliel (T-C-L-K-R-D) , as well as Ryulong (T-C-L-K-R-D)

This should a list of the bad actors of Wikipedia. The world should
know their names.

They're all irritating fucktards, it's just a question of degree.

I retract this, not all are irritating fucktards. Some are actually quite competent and reasonable;

J. delanoy:delanoy is very professional and doesn't personalise, his range blocks tend toward the shorter end of the spectrum, can't see him blocking an entire country.

Rodhullandemu: Rod is very quick to semi-protect BLP's, which imo is no bad thing.

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

The term "Worst" does indeed need to be defined.

What makes a bad debt collector? I am strong believer in the principle that people divide into basic personality types, and that these determine what job they are useful at. Some people like repetitive monotonous routine type work, and get upset when you try and give them more rewarding and useful work. That's fine, because you need people to do the monotonous work. Some people don't have an original thought in their heads, but possess finely-honed analytical skills. That's fine, they will be good accountants and auditors. A good debt collector is one who can be as menacing and threatening as possible without actually breaking the law. A bad one is one who doesn't get the money back. And so on.

Some people have no other happiness than to ensure that members of the public abide by a certain set of rules. The rules don't matter to them: it is their job to make sure that they are followed. Think of the scary official characters you meet at an airport. If you step over that yellow line which is exactly five feet in front of the passport-checking booth, you know what happens. If there is one small mistake in the way you filled in the 10-page landing form, God help you.

Wikipedia admins fall in the latter class, don't they? Law/security enforcement officers. They don't need to be smart, they just need to battle constantly against the hordes of people who want to step over the yellow line. They don't care if the person is a terrorist/teenage vandal, or a responsible member of the public who simply got the rules wrong.

So, what makes a bad admin? Nothing. Admins have to be the way they are, because the personality type attracted to the job (likes a badge, likes enforcing rules on reluctant people, dealing-with-crowds mentality) is best suited to the way that Wikipedia is set up. A system that tries to build a project using 'anyone who can edit' is bound to end up in exactly that way.

I have said it many times. It's not the people, it's the system.

So if I grok you correctly- Personality dictates role which dictates behavior?

While I grant you, that certain personality types are drawn to certain roles, I also think, based on the findings of the Milgram and Stanford Prison experiments, it is a bit more sinister than that.

Some people create the system and manipulate it to their own ends, others merely follow orders. Often the latter display what is called bicycle rider behavior, because they kick from the waist down and bow from the waist up, IE they mistreat those they regard as subordinates, yet are sycophants to their superiors. We see this a lot in pyramidal hierarchies such as Wikiland.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw_B196Ew4c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmwSC5fS40w

[EricBarbour]

I retract this, not all are irritating fucktards. Some are actually quite competent and reasonable;

J. delanoy:delanoy is very professional and doesn't personalise, his range blocks tend toward the shorter end of the spectrum, can't see him blocking an entire country.

Rodhullandemu: Rod is very quick to semi-protect BLP's, which imo is no bad thing.

That's almost as funny as Ruby the parrot. (But not quite.) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

(And why does that parrot remind me of Rodhullandemu?....)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[RMHED]

I retract this, not all are irritating fucktards. Some are actually quite competent and reasonable;

J. delanoy:delanoy is very professional and doesn't personalise, his range blocks tend toward the shorter end of the spectrum, can't see him blocking an entire country.

Rodhullandemu: Rod is very quick to semi-protect BLP's, which imo is no bad thing.

That's almost as funny as Ruby the parrot. (But not quite.) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

(And why does that parrot remind me of Rodhullandemu?....)

I love all da 'pedia admins thay give me loads of LOLS, har de har, de har.

Their work is invaluable, dey is protecting da 'pedia knowledge for da African kiddies.

Da 'pedia is a worthwhile project it enhances all humanity, da admins is der vanguard protectin da 'pedia, without dem there would be troubles.

[NotARepublican55]

According to his talk page, Chillum is now retired after yet another round of hilarity with a good content/lousy civility editor.

Not even a lousy civility editor. I know "KD Tries again" in real life (from about 25 years ago). He is one of the most consistently polite human beings I have met. He was simply complaining, in his polite way, about Chillum deleting a message from his talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...Talk_Page_alone

"First off it is common practice to remove edits by banned users, the person posting was a banned user. Secondly you don't own your talk page. I look forward to anything else you may wish to discuss with me. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 22:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)"

What a total prick... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

[Milton Roe]

According to his talk page, Chillum is now retired after yet another round of hilarity with a good content/lousy civility editor.

Not even a lousy civility editor. I know "KD Tries again" in real life (from about 25 years ago). He is one of the most consistently polite human beings I have met. He was simply complaining, in his polite way, about Chillum deleting a message from his talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...Talk_Page_alone

"First off it is common practice to remove edits by banned users, the person posting was a banned user. Secondly you don't own your talk page. I look forward to anything else you may wish to discuss with me. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 22:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)"

What a total prick... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

I suppose at this point it would be fun to mess with Chillum's own TALK page, on the grounds that he doesn't own it, either. But that's what WP:POINT is for--- it's to keep Wickipaedos from facing the consequences of their own attitudes and policies. The place would completely implode if the same rules applied to everybody there.

[EricBarbour]

"First off it is common practice to remove edits by banned users, the person posting was a banned user. Secondly you don't own your talk page. I look forward to anything else you may wish to discuss with me. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 22:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)"

What a total prick... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

Posting it here doesn't mean as much as posting it on AN/I.
No one has reported him for abuse lately.

[BelovedFox]

Does anyone know why it is that the really bad types all get a 'Awesome Wikipedian' present from Rlevse? E.g. TenofAllTrades a few days ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=347109850

I've often pondered on the logic of why people get these (Haiduc got one, e.g.). What are they for?

I've gotten one from Rlevse too, but to be honest I'm not exactly sure why I did, considering I can't remember a time we had a significant interaction... I don't think it reflects on my admin actions (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[KD Tries Again]

I suppose at this point it would be fun to mess with Chillum's own TALK page, on the grounds that he doesn't own it, either.

I did. He didn't like it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[victim of censorship]

I like to start a survey on who is the worst Wikipedian admin.

I will start the list with my good friend

Gamaliel (T-C-L-K-R-D) , as well as Ryulong (T-C-L-K-R-D)

This should a list of the bad actors of Wikipedia. The world should
know their names.

Looks like my favorite Wiki-rat laid down some more napalm.
Don't you get it Robby, you waste your time in that shit hole.
(IMG:http://i862.photobucket.com/albums/ab187/Joehazelton/robby.jpg)




Its fun to watch all the little wikivillagers run, burning and screaming, when big bad Rob lays in the napalm.

This post has been edited by victim of censorship:

[Random832]

Still, the image had a misspelling in it that didn't appear to be intentional...

If you're granting "profounded" as being a real word, where's the misspelling?

[Ryulong]

Looks like my favorite Wiki-rat laid down some more napalm.

It seems you are the one hiding in the jungle anyway.

This post has been edited by Ryulong:

[Somey]

It seems you are the one hiding in the jungle anyway.

Yeah, but... Mr. Victim knows people in every city from Evanston to South Bend. He speaks a dozen languages... he'll blend in, disappear, you'll never find him in a million years! Hell, he's probably got his hands on the grail already.

[CharlotteWebb]

Still, the image had a misspelling in it that didn't appear to be intentional...

If you're granting "profounded" as being a real word, where's the misspelling?

"statment" I'm pretty sure.

Yeah, but... Mr. Victim knows people in every city from Evanston to South Bend. He speaks a dozen languages... he'll blend in, disappear, you'll never find him in a million years! Hell, he's probably got his hands on the grail already.

Tho' it runneth over with Jimmy Juice, to his almighty chagrin.

[victim of censorship]

Looks like my favorite Wiki-rat laid down some more napalm.

It seems you are the one hiding in the jungle anyway.

Ryulong, are you the official defender of Robbies honor here???

[Deodand]

Looks like my favorite Wiki-rat laid down some more napalm.

It seems you are the one hiding in the jungle anyway.

Ryulong, are you the official defender of Robbies honor here???

Could be he is. Could just be everyone considers you a colossal arsehole. I couldn't possibly comment.

[victim of censorship]

Looks like my favorite Wiki-rat laid down some more napalm.

It seems you are the one hiding in the jungle anyway.

Ryulong, are you the official defender of Robbies honor here???

Could be he is. Could just be everyone considers you a colossal arsehole. I couldn't possibly comment.

Could be you are assuming that? I think you just one Jagoff that disagrees with me.

I don't think you represent "EVERYONE" here.

[jd turk]

Could be he is. Could just be everyone considers you a colossal arsehole. I couldn't possibly comment.

Could be you are assuming that? I think you just one Jagoff that disagrees with me.

True, I don't consider you an arsehole. I consider you hilarious, although not in a way I think you'd appreciate.

[jd turk]

According to his talk page, Chillum is now retired after yet another round of hilarity with a good content/lousy civility editor.

Not even a lousy civility editor. I know "KD Tries again" in real life...

Apologies to KD, who certainly seems like a polite fellow. I was referring to the block and subsequent unblock of Malleus, which seems to have been the final straw for Chillum.

[Rick]

Tiptoety is one of my least favourite admins - he is so greedy! He's making himself one of the higher Wikimedia users by getting CheckUser and Oversight flags on Commons, as well as being a global sysop! And apart from his police duties (which is exactly why he should not be this high in the first place), he has no life! Can't he have anything better to do, like Mario, Star Wars, Homestar Runner, Indiana Jones, Harry Potter, etc? Daniel Brandt, *please* put Tiptoety on the Hive Mind at Wikipedia Watch.

http://concordiapdx.org/wp-content/uploads.../09_9-cnews.pdf

He's in the photo on the right on the first page, and he's the one wearing glasses.

Other admins I dislike include Daniel Case and Jeske Couriano (both for lack-of-life, as well as arrogance), and Luna Santin (for stupidity, excessive use of commas, and gender confusion - if (s)he says (s)he's male, why does (s)he have a feminine-sounding username?) Those three admins are also worthy of being on your site, Daniel Brandt.

This post has been edited by Rick:

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Tiptoety is one of my least favourite admins - he is so greedy! He's making himself one of the higher Wikimedia users ... Daniel Brandt, *please* put Tiptoety on the Hive Mind at Wikipedia Watch.

http://concordiapdx.org/wp-content/uploads.../09_9-cnews.pdf

He's in the photo on the right on the first page, and he's the one wearing glasses.

These are Portland Police Cadets ... is he second on the right named as Tyler Van Wormer, or Nathan Hepp with the shades on his head?

I find it really strange how such a bunch of libertine, anarchistic, hedonist, queer, porno-pushers would be radicals allow themselves to be monitored and controlled by those with authoritarian or establishmentary tendencies. Or how those types sit comfortably on the others backs?

Its all too weird for me.

[EricBarbour]

Tiptoety is one of my least favourite admins.....http://concordiapdx.org/wp-content/uploads.../09_9-cnews.pdf
He's in the photo on the right on the first page, and he's the one wearing glasses.

These are Portland Police Cadets ... is he second on the right named as Tyler Van Wormer, or Nathan Hepp with the shades on his head?

Tyler Van Wormer.

Yes, I think that backstabbing little twat definitely belongs on Hivemind.

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

I find it really strange how such a bunch of libertine, anarchistic, hedonist, queer, porno-pushers would be radicals allow themselves to be monitored and controlled by those with authoritarian or establishmentary tendencies. Or how those types sit comfortably on the others backs?
Its all too weird for me.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif)

That's my quote of the day!
It raises one of the fundamental contradictions of teh communitah.

Perhaps those anarchists, hippies, radicals and individualists recognize, consciously or otherwise, a need for authoritarian bastards to maintain some perceived order. In theory this sounds copacetic. In practice, however, it creates an e-Golum which combines the worst traits of both anarchy and authoritarianism.

It might also have something to do with the fact that most of these authoritarian types began to rise to power in 2006-07, as WP's growth phase was giving way to its maintenance phase.

In some cases the "freaks" and the "fascists" are one and the same. For instance Davy Gerard, Chillum and Ambi. After all, just because they enjoy a liberal lifestyle, doesn't mean they can't also be authoritarian on political matters.

Hitler, when he wasn't wearing his fire breathing fuhrer face, lived like a Bohemian artist (yes, Mike Godwin..go fuck yourself (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) ).

And of course Der Jimbo's public and private hypocrisy is well known to most everyone here. He certainly did not let politics get in the way of his boning the Ann Coulter of the great white north (hey, opposites do attract).

Additionally, both groups share a common, overriding interest; to control content. And in this case, I have to concede to Kissinger that interest trumps personality.

[Moulton]

On the one hand, you have rule-oriented, punishment-oriented, authoritarian control freaks.

Against them are arrayed goal-oriented, research-oriented, authoritative knowledge freaks.

The power battle is between discoverable authoritative knowledge vs righteous political power over those damnable uppity scholars.

The main bugaboo is creativity, as produced by artists and original researchers. The rule-oriented, punishment-oriented, authoritarian control freaks are at a loss when it comes to regulating creativity in the arts and sciences.

[A Horse With No Name]

Tiptoety is one of my least favourite admins.....http://concordiapdx.org/wp-content/uploads.../09_9-cnews.pdf
He's in the photo on the right on the first page, and he's the one wearing glasses.

These are Portland Police Cadets ... is he second on the right named as Tyler Van Wormer, or Nathan Hepp with the shades on his head?

Tyler Van Wormer.

Yes, I think that backstabbing little twat definitely belongs on Hivemind.

Damn...Tyler looks like he was separated at birth by another of the too-eager teenager admins, young master Kevin Rutherford, aka Ktr101. Check out his inane grinning mug shot on Facebook. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

To quote Paul Lynde from "Bye Bye Birdie" - what's the matter with kids today? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

In theory this sounds copacetic.

As in '2 Girls 1 Copacetic'?

The reference of which is mostly a fair analogy of much admin activity ...



For the record, I have not actually made any efforts to watch the original. That was the wonderful about the written language in the old days, each was able to use one's imagine according to one's own framework of references and not have someone else's visual shit rammed down one's throat to traumatize one.

Rough talk for a subtle point I know. Apologies.

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

In theory this sounds copacetic.

As in '2 Girls 1 Copacetic'?

The reference of which is mostly a fair analogy of much admin activity ...



For the record, I have not actually made any efforts to watch the original. That was the wonderful about the written language in the old days, each was able to use one's imagine according to one's own framework of references and not have someone else's visual shit rammed down one's throat to traumatize one.

Rough talk for a subtle point I know. Apologies.

'2 Girls 1 Copacabana'



Apologies for the ManiLOW, but let the punishment fit the crime.
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Peter Damian]

I find it really strange how such a bunch of libertine, anarchistic, hedonist, queer, porno-pushers would be radicals allow themselves to be monitored and controlled by those with authoritarian or establishmentary tendencies. Or how those types sit comfortably on the others backs?
Its all too weird for me.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif)

That's my quote of the day!
It raises one of the fundamental contradictions of teh communitah.

From a thread I started ages ago. http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=185805

There are a number of resemblances between the structure, governance and ideology of Wikipedia, and those of a totalitarian state.

1. Ruled by one Party. All advancement and reward and recognition is strictly through the Party ranks.

2. Absurd elections which are totally controlled by the Party. They may not be for any but the Party, they attended almost exclusively by those who want advancement in the Party, and who naturally vote 'yes' in the hope that their own 'yes' will eventually come. Negative votes are closely watched. They must be for the right 'reasons', i.e. genuine conflicts with Party ideology. If the reasons are 'wrong', the culprit is relentlessly bullied and hounded. The outcome of each election is determined in any case by a high-ranking Party official or 'bureacrat'.

3. All advancement depends on public admission of total subservience to the Party line or ideology. A candidate for advancement must make a series of statements partly intended as public humiliation, partly to test their public acknowledgement of ideological principles and commitment to the Party.

4. Resistance to power by any other party or interest. This principle is even used by the Wikipedian resistance, on the grounds that if one Party is so bad, even more of them must be worse. Freedom of association is strictly forbidden, as is any form of canvassing.

5. Belief in a supernatural governing principle that regulates all things and to which all must be utterly subservient. Marxism has the 'progress of history'. Fascism has the 'will of the people'. Wikipedia has 'the mighty Wiki'. The Wiki is all-powerful and no one can resist it. "Do not test Wikipedia". I have heard this many times - does anyone have some concrete examples? We also have 'the project' and of course 'the community'. This principle is always invoked whenever the community or its ruling elite is about to do something very bad.

6. A 'single mad belief' that may not be challenged, and on whose existence the whole structure depends. In Wikipedia it is an over-restrictive egalitarianism, the belief that everyone can edit and everyone contributes equally to 'the project'.

7. Hostility to any kind of real individualism, and a requirement of total conformity to the group ideology. Also combined with the willingness (very common in totalitarian regimes) to forgive almost anything provided that the culprit publicly renounce their former crimes or sins, and commits themself wholeheartedly to the ideology. (Common in the cultural revolution, and in Pol Pot's regime. Also a fundamental principle of Christianity - but then totalitarian regimes have a lot in common with religious belief-systems).

8. A weird mix of ultra-liberal beliefs and restrictive social conservatism. Hitler was both a vegetarian, a green, an enemy of the church. But also a repressive conservative who toadied up to big business, and a virulent racist. In Wikipedia it is OK to have a picture of a vagina on your user page. But call someone a c---, and the block hammer is out.

9. Dependence on slave labour. No individual may claim recognition for any of their contributions to 'the project' (unless of course it is through advancement in the Party). This is combined with a system of petty and childish reward-tokens which are given for acts which are consistent with the Party-belief and ideology, and generally being a 'good citizen'. In the Soviet era this this took the form of Stakhanovism. E.g. here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Medal_trudovoj_doblest.png, and note the resemblance of the medal to a 'Barnstar'.

10. Show trials as well as secret trials.

11. A public and a secret police force. The public police force requires Party membership (and is really one and the same thing). The secret police force employs all sorts of spying methods. the concealment, in defence of which public or personal safety is argued. (The French revolutionaries had the 'committee of public safety' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_public_safety which ironically made the republic far less safe as the committee executed thousands of individuals). The Wikipedia secret intelligence force may also arrest and execute for 'behavioural reasons'. See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lon...use/HeadleyDown.

Adding

12. A scapegoat class. No ideology can possibly succeed. Therefore for every ideology there must be scapegoat-class which is to be blamed for the failure. Nazism of of course had the Jews, Marxism has the petit-bourgeouis enmired in 'false consciousness'. Wikipedia has the uncivil.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Moulton]

Adding

12. A scapegoat class. No ideology can possibly succeed. Therefore for every ideology there must be scapegoat-class which is to be blamed for the failure.

Yes. I've written at length about the role of scapegoating, both in general culture and in WikiCulture. If WP does fall by the wayside, I expect that the failure will be blamed on vandals and trolls.

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

Adding

12. A scapegoat class. No ideology can possibly succeed. Therefore for every ideology there must be scapegoat-class which is to be blamed for the failure.

Yes. I've written at length about the role of scapegoating, both in general culture and in WikiCulture. If WP does fall by the wayside, I expect that the failure will be blamed on vandals and trolls.

Let's not forget drama-mongers.
Wikivainia is fortunate to have so many scapegoat classes, and they seem to keep seeking out more.
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/scream.gif)