The 2007 WP:DICK of Distinction Awards, Official voting is now closed Options

[Herschelkrustofsky]

The official voting is now closed, although votes cast will continue to register on the software.

Well, here it is, the season for Sweeps, and what better way to capture a viewing audience than with the pomp and pageantry, the glitz and the glamour of an awards show! Hence, we have the Oscars, the Grammys, and a host of other presentations, that draw so much public attention that internet users may briefly stray from their regular, cherished pursuits, such as posting on alt.nerd.obsessive.

Here at the Wikipedia Review, we should take a moment to recognize, from among the galaxy of stars that are the Wikipedia Administrators, those that shine the brightest: we honor those Admins that distinguish themselves in the arbitrary uses of power, the cunning vendettas against their POV opponents, the gaming of the system, and the general contempt they display towards the suffering masses of plebian editors who are simply attempting to edit an online encyclopedia in peace.

The winner of the WP:DICK of Distinction award will receive a virtual statuette called "The Jimbo."
Artist's Conception





The winner and runner-up will be decided on the basis of the number of points they score in the voting. Each voter may vote for his or her primary candidate, which is assigned two points, and a runner-up candidate, assigned one point. The runner-up will receive a virtual trip to Hollywood to judge "American Idol." Winner of the Miss Incongeniality Award will be sentenced to remain an admin, and all high-ranking nominees for the Straight Shooter award may be contacted by aggrieved Wikipedians searching for justice.

Nota bene: only presently serving admins are eligible to become candidates, or to participate in the Miss Incongeniality Pageant

[LamontStormstar]

Topic needs a temporary sticky so it's easier to find the poll to check back later when more people voted.

This post has been edited by LamontStormstar: Sun 18th February 2007, 7:29pm

[Somey]

Okay, done... I probably shouldn't vote, though...

Also, Elara probably should've been on the list for Miss Incongeniality, just so it won't look like we're playing favorites.

[Jonny Cache]

It's crap like this that tells me that WR is almost as stupid as WP.
><> ><> ><>

Tanks for all da fish ...

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sun 18th February 2007, 8:00pm

[Somey]

It's crap like this that tells me that WR is almost as stupid as WP.

Probably - it does seem like we live in such an award-driven society these days (not to mention a crap-driven one)... I think it was just you and me who originally sneered at this idea, and I guess I eventually decided it wasn't that big a deal. But is there anyone else out there who's appalled by this sort of thing? Don't be shy, folks!

After all, they don't hand out awards for "Least-Respected Critic"! Come to think of it, though, they don't hand out an award for "Most Respected Critic," either.

[Elara]

Okay, done... I probably shouldn't vote, though...

Also, Elara probably should've been on the list for Miss Incongeniality, just so it won't look like we're playing favorites.

Honey, I'm restrained on Wikipedia. I once called someone an botched abortion with pretentions of sentience, and I have a small blog just for ranting incoherently about some of the shit that happens on Wikipedia.

Still, I must protest. If I understand the point of this little awards ceremony, it's to point out which people are incivil. To be honest, there are a lot of incivil people , and picking on some of them doesn't mitagate that some of them have to deal with large proportions of idiots. I'm not suprised Zoe snapped, you ever review her user talk and see some of the stupid ass, barely readable messages she got from drug-damaged fuckwits? Some of these people seem to have had gunpowder lobotomies. But it's your awards ceremony, but at least don't compare my incivility to that of rank amateurs.

[Jonny Cache]

Some of us think that civility is a big thing, some of us do not. For my part I have had far more heated intellectual rough-&-tumble with folks who are still my friends and family than I ever had at Wikipedia, but we all understood from Bell One that it was engaged in the interests of grappling with some elusive truth, not just rassling with each other.

But this kind of Celebrity Worship trivializes what some of us had hoped to accomplish at this Review, and it only serves to distract from the fact that merely merrily shuffling deck chairs on the stinkin' ship of Wikipedia will neither save that ship nor contribute to the building of better ones the next time around.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sun 18th February 2007, 9:22pm

[Somey]

Well, okay... Actually, I think we'd have to start a completely new poll anyway, just to add someone new to the list.

I'm not suprised Zoe snapped, you ever review her user talk and see some of the stupid ass, barely readable messages she got from drug-damaged fuckwits? Some of these people seem to have had gunpowder lobotomies.

Here are a few trips down memory lane:

Referred to as a "meddlesome old biddy":

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=95747107

Accused of a "low-class race card maneuver":

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=88878025

An ISO-standard string of obscenities:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=69212859

"To Hell with you!":

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=53227880

It would seem that Zoe's problem is that she got heavily into the task of deleting new-ish articles, and people don't like it when you delete their articles. They also don't like it when they get blocked for creating those new articles, which often consist of attacks on various individuals, groups, races, nationalities, and so on, blah blah blah.

So yes, I can see your point, and maybe Zoe shouldn't be included in this poll, especially since she hasn't made an edit on WP since Feb. 1. But there's still no way to change the poll without starting over...

[gomi]

But this kind of Celebrity Worship trivializes what some of us had hoped to accomplish at this Review, ...

With respect to Mr. Cache, I view this as a harmless way of blowing off steam while observing the travesty that is Wikipedia. Perhaps move this to the "Tar Barrel", but I have a hard time thinking of these nominations as "celebrity worship". Clearly Johnny is upset, though -- his posts contain not a single fractured acronym!

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Also, Elara probably should've been on the list for Miss Incongeniality, just so it won't look like we're playing favorites.

Elara's not an admin, is she? Although I forgot to make it explicit, my intention was to honor admins only, since they do represent official Wikipediadom. I don't mean in any way to sleight Elara's flair for invective. But generally here we criticize the Wikipedia establishment, and not so much the hoi polloi.

But this kind of Celebrity Worship trivializes what some of us had hoped to accomplish at this Review, ...

With respect to Mr. Cache, I view this as a harmless way of blowing off steam while observing the travesty that is Wikipedia. Perhaps move this to the "Tar Barrel", but I have a hard time thinking of these nominations as "celebrity worship". Clearly Johnny is upset, though -- his posts contain not a single fractured acronym!

Last year's abusive admin poll seemed to be quite a crowd-pleaser, although I didn't tart it up so much with facetious pop-culture references as I did with this one. I do think that there might be some marginal value in establishing a consensus [ahem] among the WR critics as to who are the worst offenders among the admins. The Wikipedian establishment appears to read our forum avidly, and they might get the message, if only slightly. Otherwise, the objective is indeed to harmlessly blow off steam.

[Daniel Brandt]

I want to vote for Essjay!

[Somey]

I want to vote for Essjay!

Well, he isn't especially abusive in the strictly behavioral sense... But maybe we could say he wins the "Crooked Shooter Award" by universal acclamation?

[LamontStormstar]

I think this poll would have been better if it was more of pointing out what they violated and less of somewhat of a personal attack.

[everyking]

I think this poll would have been better if it was more of pointing out what they violated and less of somewhat of a personal attack.

OK, my choices and reasoning: Raul gets first place (for blatant, damaging dishonesty about me in his capacity as an arbitrator), Cyde gets second (for his consistent pattern of abusing others), and SlimVirgin gets third (for aggressively trying to smear me with accusations about another person during my recent RfA, not to mention some more severe abuse in the past that I'll omit from consideration because it's all more than a year ago). Phil gets off the hook this year; I haven't noticed him abusing anyone in quite a while (has he changed or have I just been inattentive?).

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I want to vote for Essjay!

Dang! I kept the nominating process open until I was sure that everyone's favorites had been included. It's a good thing that this is all facetious.

I think this poll would have been better if it was more of pointing out what they violated and less of somewhat of a personal attack.

I suppose so, but I think that just about every nominee has a thread here at WR, devoted to documenting his or her misdeeds, or, in the case of the Straight Shooters, deeds.

[LamontStormstar]

Hmm.. Tawker's winning for straight shooterl. But tawker did stuff for and against:

Against straight shooter: Speedy deletion of Wikitruth's article and giving the unlikely reason that he thought it was not notable because he made a web searching error.

For straight shooter: Unbanning of Nathanr and maybe another person too

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Hmm.. Tawker's winning for straight shooterl. But tawker did stuff for and against:

Against straight shooter: Speedy deletion of Wikitruth's article and giving the unlikely reason that he thought it was not notable because he made a web searching error.

For straight shooter: Unbanning of Nathanr and maybe another person too

If I may indulge in a bit of electioneering here, I support Ashibaka over Tawker for Straight Shooter, because in addition to Ashibaka's many other fine qualifications, he actually posts here using his Wikipedia User Name, which takes exemplary cojones for an admin.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

The early returns have SlimVirgin in the lead with 15 points, followed by Cyde with 9 points. Jayjg and David Gerard are almost in the running with 3 and 2 points respectively. Meanwhile, in the Miss Incongeniality pageant, it's a dead heat between SlimVirgin and Kelly Martin, with 4 points each. Tawker leads the Straight Shooter polling with 5 points, while Ashibaka is in hot pursuit with 4.

Those of you who haven't voted yet, cast your votes now, so that we may put this whole sordid business behind us.

[gomi]

On a pro forma basis, I should object that the "Miss Congeniality" category is biased towards nominally female candidates. It is regretable that we did not include a "Master Baiter" category to balance this out, identifying those admins best at baiting regular editors into getting themselves banned. Of course, Slim might have won that one too.

This post has been edited by gomi: Wed 21st February 2007, 1:44am

[anon1234]

On a pro forma basis, I should object that the "Miss Congeniality" category is biased towards nominally female candidates. It is regretable that we did not include a "Master Baiter" category to balance this out, identifying those admins best at baiting regular editors into getting themselves banned. Of course, Slim might have won that one too.

Heh. The "Master Baiter" award could be limited to just males. That would have worked also.