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.

[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: Fri 23rd April 2010, 5:09am

[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.

[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.

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 ).

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.

[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.

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: Wed 28th April 2010, 3:04pm