The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 5 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Caulde: Yet another admin retirement
Milton Roe
post Wed 11th March 2009, 4:28am
Post #41


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 10th March 2009, 9:04pm) *

Why this emphasis on administrators? At best they're simply there to hold back the tide of vanadlism, and there are better and more efficient ways of doing that; at worst ... well add your own expletives. So they can guard whatever wikipeda currently contains, but that will get easier as the content providers and subject experts also desert the project. So no problem at all really, they can be just like the knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail, protecting a wooden cup. Except in their case the wooden cup really is just a wooden cup. Administrators are part of the problem, not part of the solution. The fewer of them the better.

I think you're thinking of the Indiana Jones holy grail. The one with the majick peroxide in it.

Castle Anthrax had only a grail light in Python. Which they kept leaving on. Requiring punishment for the naughty!
Image
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Malleus
post Wed 11th March 2009, 4:32am
Post #42


Fat Cat
******

Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,682
Joined: Mon 27th Oct 2008, 3:48pm
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 8,716

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 11th March 2009, 4:22am) *

The way this wiki-madhouse is set up, without admins to fix endless questionable changes,
it would turn into a shredded pile of graffiti-crap within a few weeks. It's already starting.

It isn't admins who fix most of the crap, or even very much of the crap; it's the regular editors who do that. As I said, admins are part of the problem, not part of the solution. The fewer the better.

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 11th March 2009, 4:28am) *

QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 10th March 2009, 9:04pm) *

Why this emphasis on administrators? At best they're simply there to hold back the tide of vanadlism, and there are better and more efficient ways of doing that; at worst ... well add your own expletives. So they can guard whatever wikipeda currently contains, but that will get easier as the content providers and subject experts also desert the project. So no problem at all really, they can be just like the knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail, protecting a wooden cup. Except in their case the wooden cup really is just a wooden cup. Administrators are part of the problem, not part of the solution. The fewer of them the better.

I think you're thinking of the Indiana Jones holy grail. The one with the majick peroxide in it.

Castle Anthrax had only a grail light in Python. Which they kept leaving on. Requiring punishment for the naughty!
Image

I was, yes, you're quite right. biggrin.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Eva Destruction
post Wed 11th March 2009, 12:12pm
Post #43


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,735
Joined: Sun 30th Sep 2007, 7:22pm
Member No.: 3,301

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 10th March 2009, 3:44pm) *

I have grown to despise the system of petty rules they enforce with so much finger-wagging and use of the naughty-corner. Do I hate all of them, or wish all them to hate me? Not especially, but I do have grave doubts about the integrity of anyone with the power to make a difference who chooses instead to standly idly by watching the collapse and disintegration of a project that I once thought promised so much. So I wouldn't piss on any of them if they were on fire.

And we love you too… (Does this mean I have to give up being your protector now?)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Malleus
post Wed 11th March 2009, 1:42pm
Post #44


Fat Cat
******

Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,682
Joined: Mon 27th Oct 2008, 3:48pm
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 8,716

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Wed 11th March 2009, 12:12pm) *

(Does this mean I have to give up being your protector now?)

That made me laugh too. biggrin.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
seicer
post Wed 11th March 2009, 6:50pm
Post #45


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri 15th Feb 2008, 4:40am
Member No.: 4,854

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Is there a page that lists inactive administrators, or is this one of those "I need to check the categories and the associated timestamp" deals?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sarcasticidealist
post Wed 11th March 2009, 6:51pm
Post #46


Head exploded.
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,662
Joined: Tue 22nd Jan 2008, 1:54am
From: Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
Member No.: 4,536

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(seicer @ Wed 11th March 2009, 3:50pm) *

Is there a page that lists inactive administrators, or is this one of those "I need to check the categories and the associated timestamp" deals?

Here.

This post has been edited by Sarcasticidealist: Wed 11th March 2009, 6:52pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
seicer
post Wed 11th March 2009, 6:55pm
Post #47


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri 15th Feb 2008, 4:40am
Member No.: 4,854

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



The list for 2008 is ... incredibly high compared to prior years. The last three months of 2008 alone is quite an alarming number.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sarcasticidealist
post Wed 11th March 2009, 6:56pm
Post #48


Head exploded.
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,662
Joined: Tue 22nd Jan 2008, 1:54am
From: Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
Member No.: 4,536

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(seicer @ Wed 11th March 2009, 3:55pm) *

The list for 2008 is ... incredibly high compared to prior years. The last three months of 2008 alone is quite an alarming number.
Assuming you're talking about inactive administrators (rather than former ones), you have to remember that a dynamic list like that is necessarily going to be recent-heavy.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
seicer
post Wed 11th March 2009, 6:59pm
Post #49


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri 15th Feb 2008, 4:40am
Member No.: 4,854

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Oh, thanks. For some reason, I had assumed that it was listing former administrators at one point or another, but then the list would be exceedingly lengthy. I guess one could take a look at the trend every month, but that would be too time consuming.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Alex
post Wed 11th March 2009, 7:57pm
Post #50


Back from the dead
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,017
Joined: Wed 24th Jan 2007, 4:39pm
Member No.: 867

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Malleus @ Wed 11th March 2009, 4:32am) *

It isn't admins who fix most of the crap, or even very much of the crap; it's the regular editors who do that. As I said, admins are part of the problem, not part of the solution. The fewer the better.


Where is your evidence for this?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Malleus
post Wed 11th March 2009, 8:37pm
Post #51


Fat Cat
******

Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,682
Joined: Mon 27th Oct 2008, 3:48pm
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 8,716

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Alex @ Wed 11th March 2009, 7:57pm) *

QUOTE(Malleus @ Wed 11th March 2009, 4:32am) *

It isn't admins who fix most of the crap, or even very much of the crap; it's the regular editors who do that. As I said, admins are part of the problem, not part of the solution. The fewer the better.


Where is your evidence for this?

For which part of this?

Uh, scrub that, I see it's you Majorly. Not interested in your games either here or elsewhere.

This post has been edited by Malleus: Wed 11th March 2009, 8:39pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Alex
post Wed 11th March 2009, 10:58pm
Post #52


Back from the dead
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,017
Joined: Wed 24th Jan 2007, 4:39pm
Member No.: 867

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Malleus @ Wed 11th March 2009, 8:37pm) *

QUOTE(Alex @ Wed 11th March 2009, 7:57pm) *

QUOTE(Malleus @ Wed 11th March 2009, 4:32am) *

It isn't admins who fix most of the crap, or even very much of the crap; it's the regular editors who do that. As I said, admins are part of the problem, not part of the solution. The fewer the better.


Where is your evidence for this?

For which part of this?

Uh, scrub that, I see it's you Majorly. Not interested in your games either here or elsewhere.


And you're Malleus Fatuorum? Nice to meet you.

Still, I really would like to know who and how someone came up with the idea admins actually cause damage to the encyclopedia. Sure, they may damage certain people's egos, but aside from maybe a handful of rogue admins, all desysopped, all care much about the encyclopedia and do their best to maintain its upkeep. There are of course normal editors that damage the encyclopedia on a daily basis - through vandalism, original research, NPOV statements, libel, copyvios etc. An admin caught doing that would most likely be desysopped (I say most likely because someone is bound to find an example of one that wasn't). They may not all write all the time, but they help out in tons of other ways. It's an insult to those administrators who dedicate hundreds thousands of hours to Wikipedia, writing tons of excellent articles, and improving lots more - as well as lots of maintenance admin work. I'm surprised you'd make a sweeping statement "admins are part of the problem" (well actually I'm not but whatever). You mean people like Iridescent, Jennavecia, Casliber, Rlevse, Jbmurray, Nev1, Ddstretch etc are all part of the problem? It's funny, there's always talk about this sort of thing, but no real evidence. No examples, no nothing. Just somebody's say-so. It was probably a little too much to ask you where you get this idea from, still it would be interesting to know all the same.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Malleus
post Wed 11th March 2009, 11:18pm
Post #53


Fat Cat
******

Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,682
Joined: Mon 27th Oct 2008, 3:48pm
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 8,716

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Alex @ Wed 11th March 2009, 10:58pm) *

... aside from maybe a handful of rogue admins, all desysopped ...

You're one of those, aren't you?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Alex
post Wed 11th March 2009, 11:23pm
Post #54


Back from the dead
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,017
Joined: Wed 24th Jan 2007, 4:39pm
Member No.: 867

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Malleus @ Wed 11th March 2009, 11:18pm) *

QUOTE(Alex @ Wed 11th March 2009, 10:58pm) *

... aside from maybe a handful of rogue admins, all desysopped ...

You're one of those, aren't you?


Try again.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gomi
post Wed 11th March 2009, 11:30pm
Post #55


Member
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,022
Joined: Fri 17th Nov 2006, 6:38pm
Member No.: 565



QUOTE(Alex @ Wed 11th March 2009, 3:58pm) *
Still, I really would like to know who and how someone came up with the idea admins actually cause damage to the encyclopedia. ... normal editors that damage the encyclopedia on a daily basis - through ... original research, NPOV statements, ... An admin caught doing that would most likely be desysopped ...


Jayjg (T-C-L-K-R-D) fits your description of an admin -- of the most powerful kind -- who does immense damage to WP by leading a merry band who insert as much POV and bias of their particular partisan variety into the "encyclopedia". As documented here on WR and on WP, Jayjg, IronDuke, NoCal100, Canadian Monkey, JoshuaZ and others use Jay's admin tools and the worst kind of system-gaming imaginable to drive WP in a direction far, far from reliable real-world academic or journalistic sources.

If you want another, SlimVirgin continues (albeit at a lower level) to drive her POV on articles relating to "Animal Rights" and similar. The whole Prem Rawat thing has also been covered here and elsewhere. That also involves a powerful admin.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that all admins are evil, venal, POV-pushers, just many of them. It seems to be one of the rewards of working within such an insane system.

You're (of course) free to push your mindless pro-Wikipedia position here, but it isn't supported by even a cursory look at the facts.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Alex
post Wed 11th March 2009, 11:36pm
Post #56


Back from the dead
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,017
Joined: Wed 24th Jan 2007, 4:39pm
Member No.: 867

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(gomi @ Wed 11th March 2009, 11:30pm) *

QUOTE(Alex @ Wed 11th March 2009, 3:58pm) *
Still, I really would like to know who and how someone came up with the idea admins actually cause damage to the encyclopedia. ... normal editors that damage the encyclopedia on a daily basis - through ... original research, NPOV statements, ... An admin caught doing that would most likely be desysopped ...


Jayjg (T-C-L-K-R-D) fits your description of an admin -- of the most powerful kind -- who does immense damage to WP by leading a merry band who insert as much POV and bias of their particular partisan variety into the "encyclopedia". As documented here on WR and on WP, Jayjg, IronDuke, NoCal100, Canadian Monkey, JoshuaZ and others use Jay's admin tools and the worst kind of system-gaming imaginable to drive WP in a direction far, far from reliable real-world academic or journalistic sources.

If you want another, SlimVirgin continues (albeit at a lower level) to drive her POV on articles relating to "Animal Rights" and similar. The whole Prem Rawat thing has also been covered here and elsewhere. That also involves a powerful admin.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that all admins are evil, venal, POV-pushers, just many of them. It seems to be one of the rewards of working within such an insane system.

You're (of course) free to push your mindless pro-Wikipedia position here, but it isn't supported by even a cursory look at the facts.


Did I say at any time, anywhere at all, that all admins on Wikipedia were absolute stars? Did I ever give the impression I agree with every single one of them, and think they all do a brilliant job?

No, I did not. I am saying the suggestion that every single one is a problem is big words, but no substance. I never denied there are problematic admins, ever, at any point. So do not imply I did. Cheers.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gomi
post Wed 11th March 2009, 11:50pm
Post #57


Member
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,022
Joined: Fri 17th Nov 2006, 6:38pm
Member No.: 565



QUOTE(Alex @ Wed 11th March 2009, 4:36pm) *
Did I say at any time, anywhere at all, that all admins on Wikipedia were absolute stars? ... No, I did not.

And I didn't say every single one is evil. Just most. You did say:

QUOTE(Alex @ Wed 11th March 2009, 3:58pm) *
I would like to know how someone came up with the idea admins actually cause damage to the encyclopedia ... aside from maybe a handful of rogue admins, all desysopped, all care much about the encyclopedia ... there's always talk about this sort of thing, but no real evidence. No examples, no nothing.

So it's like this: I read exactly what you wrote: "aside from ... rogue admins, all desysopped ... all care ... about the encyclopedia". That is what you wrote, and also the distinct impression you left with any reader with two brain cells to rub together. But when I present "examples, evidence", you backpedal. Are you stupid or just too Wiki-brainwashed to know what you are typing?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Malleus
post Wed 11th March 2009, 11:59pm
Post #58


Fat Cat
******

Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,682
Joined: Mon 27th Oct 2008, 3:48pm
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 8,716

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Alex @ Wed 11th March 2009, 11:23pm) *

QUOTE(Malleus @ Wed 11th March 2009, 11:18pm) *

QUOTE(Alex @ Wed 11th March 2009, 10:58pm) *

... aside from maybe a handful of rogue admins, all desysopped ...

You're one of those, aren't you?

Try again.

Ah yes, I remember now. You jumped before you were pushed.

This post has been edited by Malleus: Wed 11th March 2009, 11:59pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Wikileaker
post Thu 12th March 2009, 12:03am
Post #59


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 62
Joined: Fri 15th Feb 2008, 7:07pm
Member No.: 4,864



Malleus, I love you and have always loved you.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Malleus
post Thu 12th March 2009, 12:06am
Post #60


Fat Cat
******

Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,682
Joined: Mon 27th Oct 2008, 3:48pm
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 8,716

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Wikileaker @ Thu 12th March 2009, 12:03am) *

Malleus, I love you and have always loved you.

How did you know that William James is one of my heroes? biggrin.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

5 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
4 User(s) are reading this topic (4 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th 5 17, 3:53pm