Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: It's not just me
> Wikimedia Discussion > Bureaucracy
Shalom
I got massive LOL of celebrating the epic destruction of Wikipedia's corrupt power structure evident at Redthunder's RFA:

Diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=394761244

Current version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...ship/Redthoreau

Some of the good guys come to Redthunder's defense, post-mortem on RFA talk:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...on_registration

It's not just me. RFA hazing was bad for me and has gotten only worse since 2008.
Theanima
RFA is broken but people just can't agree on what is broken about it. Some think standards are too high, some think they are too low.
thekohser
Red's not the best speller in the world. Seems like spelling should be a requisite part of administrating an encyclopedia of knowledge.
Cedric
The only question of any importance here is whether or not Redthunder was a good Hasten The Day!™ candidate. If so, it's a shame Red didn't make it.
EricBarbour
QUOTE(Shalom @ Fri 5th November 2010, 11:02am) *
I got massive LOL of celebrating the epic destruction of Wikipedia's corrupt power structure evident at Redthunder's RFA:
Diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=394761244
Current version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...ship/Redthoreau

And most comical of all: some of the trolls who expressed their dislike of Redthoreau's past activities are just as guilty as he is,
of "incivility" and "abuse" and "editwarring". Sarek, SandyGeorgia, take a bow! And YellowMonkey........ yak.gif
QUOTE
Oppose This guy is a communist POV pusher YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so who had 4 hours and 5 minutes on the McCarthyite office poll? Oh, guess what, my favorite baseball team is also the Cincinnati Reds! Ahh! If you can't show where I have claimed to be a "Communist" anywhere, then I would ask that you redact your accusation. Redthoreau -- (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

And verging on a Castro/Guevara SPA (waiting for edit stats to be added to talk). Please clean up that talk page! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Certainly not in the last year or two, although I addressed the SPA status in the first year up above. As for my talk page, I can't believe that is even relevant to a nomination process. Can some here at least give the impression that this process isn't one big fucking joke? Redthoreau -- (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It's very obvious from your writing record that if some communist breaks 3RR, the page will get protected, but if a "reactionary" does so, a block, and likely a lengthy one will land on their head. Anyone can check your Castro/Guevara/Batista edits and tell YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

YM, are you aware that editors have been banned for engaging in accusations similar to your's? DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
laugh.gif

QUOTE
It's not just me. RFA hazing was bad for me and has gotten only worse since 2008.

Just watch. This is only the beginning.
I would not be at all surprised to see antics like those at 419eater, being applied to prospective WP admins.

Wikipedia started with a lot of mushmouthing about "egalitarianism".
As time wore on, it became more and more exclusionary.
Unless the leadership is completely routed out, it will become an arrogant private club --
especially to those seeking admin powers. "Thanks for the free labor, unpaid volunteer editors!
Oh, you want some political power? Piss off."
Abd
The RfA process is One More Example of Awful Structure.

Since this is a wiki we are talking about, where just about everything can be fixed, what's the big deal with allowing people a hand at administration?

Problem is, they forget to set up sensible desysop procedure, that desysopped *easily*, or, at least, suspended sysop privileges pending some investigation and decision. Or lots of possible variations.

However, any easy desysop procedure terrifies the established administrative cabal. They believe that any courageous sysop would be immediately attacked.

But ... "courageous" means "willing to act on personal conviction," which, when it's strong, is almost by definition "involved," in any sensible meaning of the word.

What was needed in administrators -- called "custodians" at Wikiversity, to reflect the theoretical humility involved in the legitimate job -- was dull, boring, predictable work.

Without easy desysop, then, of course, the community has to try to make it Very Certain that the sysop will be a good one. Which is impossible. Power corrupts. Wikipedia massively screwed up by assigning real power to sysops, imagining that this power could be restrained. The scale made that impossible.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.