Does it seem like all of a sudden, in the wake of Essjay, the outside world and media have no problem going after individual editors? The New York Times and the Korean media are after SlimVirgin, and now others are after Morton.

Thoughts? How can we work to ensure that society accepts that it is needed and right to hold all individual contributors on Wikipedia responsible for all their actions to the outside world?

What do you expect when sociopaths are in control of so much google/yahoo juice.

The news media/real world would, inevitable will take notice and start to comment.

Considering the nastiness and blatant hypocrisy of Slimy, and the other numbnut wiki-admins it's just reflects back on them.

The critical mass on this may have been now reached and it's going to be
a turkey shoot with these major media outlets now racing to "out" the
more notable bad actors of the wacky wiki flying circus.

I don't know about you, but "Group of editors try to tone down moonbat theories on Wikipedia, moonbats savagely attack group of editors offsite" is as old as Wikipedia. Hell, even WR has been down that road (y halo thar Herschel).

Why so angry, A Man In Black?

Blacky is a True Believer in the five pillars and all that. He suffers from what some call "cognitive dissonance" because reality fails to match his ideals. So he is trapped in paradox and confusion.

Come away from the Dark Side, Blacky. You have nothing to lose but your adminship.

The question is - is it better to have someone like AMIB as an admin or not. I'm all for having honest, non-abusive admins so I say to him "stick in there".

Is AMIB a good admin now just because he posts here? On WP he's uncivil and aggressive.

Well, I think that any admins that are generally *trying* to do the right thing are a benefit to the project, whether they make the occasional stuff up or not. That accounts for probably 70-80% of them. Some of them get a bit power-trippy, but were probably quite reasonable before they were admins. And some of them are outrageously bad. You'd probably notice on here that we focus on some of the same names again and again, and that's because really most admins are just normal people.

For example, none of us complained about Essjay. Essjay was a good admin. He stuffed up once or twice, but he was generally very good. If only Essjay had been honest about his credentials the whole time, he could still be an admin. And I for one would support Essjay being an admin again, so long as he can be honest about who he is.

However, the chance that Essjay may have changed history means that he had to be exposed. This is a sad reality.

And on the other side we have a thoroughly abusive admin, SlimVirgin, who it seems has done much worse history-changing activities. Should she be excused because she's an otherwise horrendous admin?

I'll ask frankly - how many admins are actually problematic and abusive? I don't know of that many - I'm not even sure I'd have to take off my socks (pun intended?) if I wanted to count them all. I think the problem with Admins on Wikipedia is roughly the same as the problems with cops in real life: Most are honest, dedicated and hardworking, but they don't/won't/can't deal with the few bad eggs, and often support them, if only because they trust one another and not random joes they've never heard of before. Investigating every complaint about abuse of admin power simply isn't possible - even investigating a single complaint is a lot of work, and my suspicion is most complaints will come to naught anyhow. Investigating them would just be a waste of time. Obviously I'm biased, but I'm fairly sure every complaint about my actions (of which there have actually been very few) was unjustified, or I've responded to and corrected (I could, of course be wrong).

That said, I do have a strong bias - I believe that the purpose of Wikipedia is to create a free encyclopaedia, and that things should be done towards that goal. I do think that people who come there for some other purpose should be told to go elsewhere. It's said most Wikipedia admins hate freedom of speech - I don't, but I don't support allowing it at Wikipedia - and those of you that do want Wikipedia to serve as a platform to disseminate your opinions to the world should find the climate hostile and abusive, and receive what you feel are unfair bans. Frankly, I think it goes the opposite way - admins don't/can't/won't do enough to chase away abusive, disruptive editors who aren't there to write an encyclopaedia, and don't do enough to protect and nurture those editors that are there to write an encyclopaedia.

Wikipedia's real problem, I think, is that it got far too popular before it was ready. There's still a lot to sort out (it is an ambitious project, with problems being worked out empirically) and having it popular enough that it attracts all these troublemakers before the infrastructure is in place to deal with them is a pain. In the end, more editors and more administrators will be helpful, I think. But I don't know.

Anyways, this is a long rant to ask "How many admins are abusive, exactly?"

That is a good analogy, but you cannot just dismiss it as a few bad apples and forget it. Following your cop analogy, look what a few bad cops have done to the reputation of good police officers. Good police officers hate it when one misconduct spoils their good name, often in the case in the United States, all over the country. This is why departments have Internal Affairs investigations, albeit that in many departments they are nothing but a joke.

So, while I don't know if this is what you are suggesting, just because abusive admins may be a minority, it doesn't mean they should just be dismissed. In fact, it should require higher scrutiny from within Wikipedia, rather than toeing some administrator line.

I'm not suggesting it be dismissed. I'm only raising questions as to the nature of the problem. I don't have answer for how to solve it (although that is mostly why I'm interested in this board) - but I don't think it'll be solved without recognising the real nature of the problem.

So what do you do about the few bad eggs? Or am I wrong about the nature of the problem? Are all admins, save a few rogues, really abusive, problematic users? How many admins, really, have been complained about here for legitimate reasons? How many really don't listen to complaints about their behaviour?

Really, the bureaucrats should be able to censure admins and if necessary block them or force them to go through another RfA. Not that every bureaucrat is a saint either, but on the whole they're a decent bunch.

Are you suggesting we shouldn't be trying to eliminate the Moonbat crap? BTW, don't get the idea that I'm a huge WP supporter -- I'm not -- I think it's infested by Moonbats. Wikipedia will never be legitimate until it gets paid senior editors and paid admins to moderate the extremism of volunteer admins and editors. I do, however, think it's highly amusing that banned Wikipedians show up here -- what's the point -- as Soros would say: "Move On!" (Yes F.A.A.F.A., that last one was for you).

Banning doesn't matter. There are at least seven current admins that are banned on another name.

I think that if our one and only criticism of Wikipedia is that they have bad administrators, then our criticism is laughable. It is true that they have corrupt admins. So does every single internet community in the world. Some of them have a few more than others. I think that Wikipedia probably has about the same proportion of bad admins as anywhere else does. The reality is that internet communities have a higher proportion than real life communities quite simply because they are volunteers and are anonymous, both factors that increase the likelihood of abuse. Once you give people power, there is a tendency for that power to corrupt. I have no doubt that even administrators on Wikipedia Review have the same amount of corruption in proportion terms as administrators on Wikipedia - the same amount of people who have pointed out things that we've done wrong, and so forth. Being anonymous makes it worse because there is a tendency for anonymous people (especially over the internet) to do worse things than they would with their real name. And, as JoseClutch says, there probably aren't that many more Wikipedia admins who are abusive than there are police. I would actually say that there are more, because of the anonymity and it being voluntary (people who are paid can just say "its my job" and avoid corruption, but when its voluntary, there is a tendency to feel like you must be corrupt in order for it to be worth it). Nonetheless, it is about the expected level of corruption, given that it is anonymous and voluntary.

As for the structure, there are a lot of criticisms over it, which is primarily that it can't work on a large scale to have that much faith over people's actions. Given that Wikipedia's admin structure is very unusual, this is in many ways a legitimate criticism. On a small scale, the model was clearly designed to limit corruption, and on a small scale it seems like it probably worked. If a small project like Wikipedia Review for example were to use his system and remained as small as we currently are, it would probably be very much not corrupt. But the problem is that on a larger scale it becomes untenable, because on a larger scale it has no transparency, and it is too easy for people to manipulate the system. A system where you can change the rules to suit yourself? A system where there are few rules, but many exceptions? A system whereby there are no real ways to tell who anyone is, but secretly there is tons? A system which, on a large scale, encourages secrecy? This is something well worth criticising.

Individual abusive admins aren't really worth criticising to any large extent. However, individual abusive admins who are taking advance of the bad system that doesn't work on a large scale are a big problem.

And most importantly, abusive admins who change history, are a big thing to consider criticising.

Consider the real damage in a real life scenario that admins can cause:

1) They can ban a user illegitimately. Big deal, they can still edit, can even change their ISP and edit anyway. Who cares if this is unjust? It makes no difference to the real world, and Wikipedia is in the end a private company so who cares?
2) That user was an expert in their field, and by banning them they are forcing a certain point of view. This is more of a worry, but in the end so long as they still use their sources, it shouldn't really matter. It's a bit wrong, and a bit of a worry (my ban is an example of this kind of thing) but its not that big a deal.
3) They ban the user, and then discredit their sources saying that because they were banned therefore the sources don't matter. This is a much bigger worry. Or worse, they add these sources to the spam blacklist, justifying it by the fact that they were banned. This is changing history, and is more of a serious concern.
4) They add articles to the spam blacklist, or change their rules on such policies as Wikipedia:Verifiability, to suggest that they can't be used, then ban someone unfairly, then ban anyone else who disagrees with them, thus forcing a minority view that might only be held by 1% of people, to be pushed by Wikipedia. (e.g. List of British Jews). This is a far more serious concern.
5) They do all of this, then delete all evidence that they had ever done it, and delete the evidence using the Oversight ability, so that nobody can tell that they had done it, and then use this ability to change history (e.g. Lockerbie bombing, the current scandal). This is of enormous importance.
6) On top of doing all of this, they ban anyone who asks them about it, hide all evidence that it was ever an issue, and even when it becomes a major news source insist that it is stalking to suggest it. This is so big that every single person on Wikipedia, or who uses Wikipedia, should be aware of it.

And this is really the rating of importance.

In the end, sure, its a shitter that people get banned, and we let them say their case. But ultimately, Poetlister getting banned is never going to make it to world headlines. Sure, she was a good user, sure it was unfair to ban her, sure she was banned using false allegations of sock puppetry. Sure she was banned to allow for the List of British Jews list to be controlled by SlimVirgin, but in the end that doesn't matter to world events. It won't be taught in schools, it doesn't change the law, it doesn't make any difference to the real world.

It is on the controversial issues, having these controlled, and having all of this smoke and daggers, that will make a difference to world opinion.

Because in the end, basically this is demonstrating that Wikipedia is controlling the world's media, that Wikipedia, not any governments, but Wikipedia, has the ability now to change truth to untruth. This is the biggest and most important story ever to affect Wikipedia.

Power doesn't corrupt. The people already were like that.

Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character give him power. --Abraham Lincoln


The real problem with admin abuse on wikipedia is caused by, well this will explain:

Do not fear your enemies. The worst they can do is kill you. Do not fear friends. At worst they may betray you. Fear those who do not care; they neither kill nor betray, but betrayal and murder exists because of their silent consent. --Bruno Jasienski (Yasensky)

Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph. --Haile Selasssie

Exactamundo !!!


Jonny

I don't think there is a catch all thing to do about all the bad eggs. Maybe some we throw away, some we throw at our neighbor's house and others we decorate for easter.

Removing, limiting, or at least keeping a watch on the abuse of a few bad admins is not in WR's best interest, it is in Wikipedia's. Post that on the mailing list.

The problem is not whether WP admins are good or not; I take the position that they are neither: they are human beings who, if they had the qualfications to actually do the job that WP is expecting them to do, would all have University gigs. it's not fair to even discuss them along those lines, because it's simply obvious from what happens that they aren't qualified for this job.

The problem with WP is the idea behind it. The idea that everyone is equal and has the same possibility to contribute intelligently. IF this was just a matter of reporting what was already in sources (which is supposedly WP policy, but we all know how that works....), this would be true. it would simply be a matter of opening the correct books and copying the information there.

The crux of the problem is in the selection process of information, which (regardless of what anyone would like to believe) cannot and will never be NPOV. The selection process will always require "original research"....or perceptive thinking.

In the real world, ideas are imposed by force. WP pretends that the ideas there are imposed by "consensus", but if said "consensus" is simply the imposed perspection of a small group of intercircle power-dealers, then the only that different here is the fact that there is dishonesty present.

In academia, you KNOW that you're going to have to fight to get your ideas to go forward. Everyone knows it. There are rules which are bent and rules which are broken, but everyone knows that it's not even remotely an issue of "consensus". And if your position openly challenges the positions of those who have based their careers on these views, then you're in for a real fight.

So, ultimately, here we are in WikiLand. There are people who have "tenure"....and they're not willing to let others change the rules.

The only thing surprising is that people are pretending that this isn't happening. It very clearly is.

The problem is that people are treated equally? I wrote a whole philosophical theory of intelligence based around that idea. I agree with Jimbo on that one! Or Jimbo agrees with me, whoever first came up with the idea.

It's a great idea in theory, but it doesn't work in practice, simply because people "game" the system. So, what seems to be "equal access for all" never is.

Secondly, well....I hate to tell you this, but people just are not equal. I can cook a gourmet dinner for ten, but I can't change my oil filter. Over at WP, should I be editing in the automotive section?

In real life, this kind of thing is sorted out by academic degrees, work experience, life experience etc. People are "qualfied" to do certainly things because they can prove either that they have the training to do them or they have had the experience of doing them in the past.

At WP, nobody asks any questions. And since the whole thing is based on "consensus" or "what everybody thinks", the end result is not "what is true", but rather "what everybody thinks is true".

This is not an improvement on the old system, IMO.

but at least you and Jimbo agree on something!

I agree that Jimbo's system, or even my system that I used on Planes of Existence, cannot work on a large scale system. Indeed, in the end it didn't work on PoE either. My system was somewhat different however, because I recognised the need to ban people, and as part of my system, I accounted for people abusing the system, from day 1, and put in processes to deal with this. The big problem with this kind of system is that it requires for one person to look over the whole thing diligently. In other words, it works fine so long as it is small enough that one person can keep an eye on everything. Hence while Wikipedia had under 1,000 editors, it probably worked fine. PoE worked fine right up until some admins went on major power trips and tried to justify it. Same deal. Same problems. Because inherently people want to abuse whatever rules there are. And eventually the abusers will win.



If you read what I wrote on Intelligence, I did not suggest that people were all equal on any individual things. I said that everyone has things that they are good at and things that they are bad at, and that OVERALL everyone was equal. In other words, I could compare you and me, and we would find a roughly equal number of things that I am better at, and a roughly equal number of things that you are better at. And indeed, you could take any two people in the entire universe and compare them, and you'd find the same results. You would never find an example where you get two people, and on every single conceivable skill, one person is better than the other. That is what I am saying.



In my theory I agree with you entirely. People who are experts are simply people who are idiots in other ways. Some people are more "all rounders", who are reasonably good at lots of things, but not brilliant at anything, while others are more extreme - hopeless at some things and brilliant at others. The hopeless/brilliant ones in many ways make the best contributions. But the well-balanced "all rounders" can help to provide much stability and use the brilliance to ends that others can more easily understand.



When I saw Wikipedia's model (which, admittedly, I saw a long time after I was first banned), I was very impressed with it, and this convinced me to give it a second chance. My first experiences had led me to believe that Wikipedia was full to the brim with abusive admins, but when I saw that, I saw that the problem was that some of them had abused the process, and that the issue was that of controlled articles, and indeed that had I edited less controversial articles, then I would not have had that experience.

Later, in version 2, I edited less controversial articles, and stayed well away from any controlled articles. The result was that I had no problems whatsoever. Whilst I helped other users, as soon as I was told (basically) that they were being destroyed by the cabal, I stayed away.

Until Poetlister came along of course, and then I was banned, because that was a decision made by the cabal. Nobody can win against the cabal. And I knew full well that they'd ban everyone if we got involved. But I had quit by then anyway, so I didn't know if they'd go through with it for me, as I said I'd quit, and I had quit.

Sometimes I think it's sad that Jimbo had so many good ideas, but really didn't think them through to their logical conclusion. I mean why didn't he consider that eventually he'd be getting manipulative people involved? Why didn't he consider that eventually if it got big enough that foreign governments would want to manipulate articles?

I mean if I had done it, I would have considered those things, and accounted for them. But he simply didn't do it.

And I guess this is the problem when a project is made as a spur of the moment idea to back up the main project, then they shut down the main project.

If they'd STARTED with Wikipedia, and not had Nupedia first, then perhaps they would have considered things properly, and then perhaps things wouldn't be as bad as they are now.

I'm pretty cynical about this, but I don't think that the stated purpose of Wikipedia (the encyclopedia) was really what it was all about.

I think that Wikipedia began as a way of generating buzz for Wikia and especially as a means of generating venture capital.

That's the only plausible excuse that I can think of for Jimbo's general attitude towards leaving the system alone and only intervening when things start to get "public".

In the end, the central issue is Jimbo's inherent conflict of interest, which he can never admit without losing all credibility.

Well, I have a fair degree of empathy for Jimbo. As you know, I had big plans for a major breakthrough idea, and in the end I decided to use those plans in a talker. If I had instead decided to write an online encyclopedia, it might have been that I was the person behind Wikipedia, not Jimbo. I can imagine that, if things were different, that could have happened. I mean I certainly can imagine myself getting involved in a porn site and making money off it, and then using that money to fund something that had all of my grandiose ideas. So I would like to think that I can understand a little bit of where Jimbo was coming from.

If I had been the one to start Wikipedia, first of all I wouldn't have lied about who was the founder and co-founder, I would have made it very clear. You can see that a lot of people like to pretend that Igor Alexander didn't start Wikipedia Review, that we didn't have a ProBoards forum first, but I have made it a point to highlight that, out of respect for Igor, and most importantly, for accuracy's sakes. And a lot of people want to keep it quiet that Igor was accused of being a holocaust denier, but I like to highlight that too, because it's accurate. So if I had started Wikipedia, I wouldn't have lied about Larry Sanger being the co-founder. Nor would I have lied about Bomis being a porn site. I mean there's nothing wrong with it being founded on porn. It's not like porn is a bad thing or anything. People choose to do it, and it provides entertainment. I don't see what there is to be embarassed about.

My ideas for how to structure it would have had many of the same initial ideas, however, unlike Jimbo I would have expected people to abuse the system, and accounted for that. This is where we most significantly disagree. I too would have tried to share the power, and allowed admins some say in the rules, but I wouldn't have let just any old idiot write the rules themselves. I would have made that admins only, and had a clear heirarchy. I would have only let admins vote on Request for Adminship, not letting every idiot vote. I never would have allowed anon editing, and I would have forced people to register in order to edit, and also forced them to provide an e-mail address. And I wouldn't have had CheckUser, instead I would have had all IP addresses visible to all admins for every post - permanently. Not for every person who views it, only for admins, so that it stays semi-private, but is still accountable.

I would have made the exact same demands that he did about banning - nobody gets banned without my personal approval. And I would have set up the Arbitration Committee in the same way that he did. However, I would have had all Arb Com decisions deleted the instant that a decision was reached, and viewable only by admins. I think it is a ridiculous smear against a person's name to have that viewable. Indeed, from what I can tell Jimbo agrees with me, however he just hasn't been allowed to enforce that.

I also would have hidden article talk pages, user talk pages, policy pages and history from any search engines or anyone who is not a registered member. I mean how ridiculous is it that you do a search for something and then find all this garbage? That's not professional.

And I would have allowed ownership over someone's own user page, and let them ban people from their user talk.

Jimbo has a lot of good ideas, and I'd say we agree fundamentally on about 80% of them. Most likely most people here also agree with most of his ideas. But the problem is the ones that we disagree with, and the big problem with them.

And the other thing is that I would have been sure that, once it became successful, foreign governments would get involved, and I would have had a rule that forbade any government agents from influencing any decisions. That was the rule on our talker. Police, sure, but not secret agents, not sneakily and secretly.

Oh and I certainly wouldn't have had NPOV. I would have had a rule on expertise and relevancy, and tried to accommodate all points of view.

And I would have allowed ownership of articles, if they were experts on the topic, and could prove that they were. They then would have a right to own it, shared then only with other experts.

And I certainly wouldn't have banned legal threats. That rule is ridiculous.

I wouldn't have had a wikistalking rule - I would have had a Cyberstalking rule.

I may have had an attack sites policy, but I would have had all attack sites voted on before being added to the list. I wouldn't have done this underhandedly.

There's a lot of things that you can understand, and empathise with, but there's also a lot of things that are really wrong, that are inexcusable. Jimbo seems to hide the inexcusable things amidst all of his understandable lapses.

Does Webarchive.org even show what the old Bomis was? Was it a porn site? If so people should just start linking that nonsense to Jimbo each time he gets into "It was an art site!" nonsense.

It was porn, but relatively tame; basically naked girls alone and together, without actual sex acts....although maybe I only saw the tame stuff and there was more raunchy material there?

Jimbo calls it "glamour photography"....and somebody once asked him if you could call paedophilia "child glamour photography"....I don't remember his response....

No, they call it something like art. Or artistic pictures of the naked human body. And it fits that definition as long as it's not sexual. I think it's legal in Eastern Europe, maybe Kazakhstan.

Throw the Wikipedian down the well?

Throw the Jimbo down the well.
(Someone should write modified lyrics)

Alright, then:

THROW THE JEW JIMBO DOWN THE WELL

In my country there is problem
And that problem is Jimbo
He make role playing game
And called it Wikipedia

Throw Jimbo down the well
So my country can be free
So my country can be free
You must grab him by his horns
Then we have a big party

If you see Jimbo coming
You must be careful of his lies
You must grab him by his Wikia
And I tell you what to do

Throw Jimbo down the well
So my country can be free
So my country can be free
You must grab him by his horns
Then we have a big party

Jimbo has most dangerous friend
And her name is Linda Mack
She keeps the Wikipedia "safe"
By stabbing you in the back

Throw Jimbo down the well
Throw Jimbo down the well
So my country can be free
So my country can be free
You must grab him by his horns
You must grab him by his horns
Then we have a big party
Then we have a big party

Throw Jimbo down the well
Throw Jimbo down the well
So my country can be free
So my country can be free
You must grab him by his horns
You must grab him by his horns
Then we have a big party

(I've edited your post to match the number of lines in the song, as I was listening to the original, trying to match the words to the music)

Hey, that's really good!

Now maybe someone could write a song based on "Kazakhstan national anthem"? (though there aren't enough syllables to say "Wikipedia" - maybe "Wikia" or [though I loathe its use for this purpose] "Wiki"?)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in the "WR is an EEEVIL OUTING/ATTACK/WORLDDOMINATION site!!!111one" camp. But this isn't exactly a new cycle.

You have a forum, let's say Forum.com.
Moonbat With A Cause comes there.
MWAC rambles about his cause, disrupts the main goal of the forum.
Admins ban MWAC.
MWAC opens Forumsucks.com, rants at length about how Forum is in opposition to The Cause and run by the enemies of The Cause, etc.

To say that this is some sort of new thing, either for the internet in general or for Wikipedia in particular, is silly. Hell, I have had people write such screeds about me on two different occasions, once for webcomics and one for a Star Wars fandom article. (The webcomic one actually had a good point, and more or less convinced me of the rightness of The Cause, if not the injustice of tamping down the MWACs.)

Jesus, Amib you have just made five post in the past few minutes, four have been about yourself and one about pokeman. Why don't you leave and come back after you up your game?

Maybe I or my brain was on holiday when it came up, but the WR profile for WR Member : A Man In Black gives his or her Wikipedia User Page (WUP) as WP User : Plautus satire. I was under the impression that our moderators verified these attributions. So which is it?

Jonny

Maybe Amib is trying to maintain cowardly "plausible deniability" in WP circles. I've notice a number of recent accounts have non-existent WP user names. I think maybe we need to stress that they don't have to, and maybe shouldn't, give a WP account name.

Did you have something on-topic to say?


I just don't think there's a new trend here, just the seasonal recurrence of the same sort of cycle. Sometimes the MWACs aren't Moonbats, just obnoxious while being right, and sometimes they're just insane, but it's not a new phenomenon either way.



GBG, you are priceless.

It's my understanding that anyone's free to enter whatever they like or leave the field blank. It's a completely optional field.

The "Wikipedia username" profile field isn't policed. There was even a period of time when I debated blanking the field on my profile (of course, that didn't last long and I judged the merits of leaving it in far outweighted the merits of removing it). I don't believe we verify those things, and I don't really think it's our job to do that. Though some may disagree, the question I would put to them would be, "If you think so, why and how?" (This is one of those long, drawn-out discussions that not everyone will agree with)

So yes, it can in some cases lead to people claiming they're someone else but I don't think I've ever seen such a case. Has it happened and I've just forgotten about it? Memory is always the first thing to go...it's mind over matter and if I don't mind, it doesn't matter.

Do we basically want to force users to supply a name, thus giving some "rouge" admins any excuse to block them for being here? In that case, no.

*waits for other mods to add their input*

Well as long as you have to talk about yourself why did you choose a vaguely populist pedophile Greek playwright for your username?

Yeah, lots of people have fake wikipedia usernames in their profile. It's not a requirement, especially given that Wikipedia has a policy to desysop admins and ban users for posting here, if they say the wrong thing.

Now here's my problem — well, one of my problems — we've had this Best Accoutred Administrator Award (BAAA) with A Man In Black's name on it all packed up and ready for the Fed-Up-Xpress courier to scoop up, and no way of knowing where to send it, and no way of knowing whether some dopelgangbanger pretender to the title has registered with our Forum purely for the sake of uslurping the honors that are justly due another. Not that we have any precedent for suspecting such a thing, but y'know it pays to be ever so SleightlyVigilant.

Jonny

Well if that asshole isn't a WP admin, he should be.

Just so I know, what exactly is the "wrong thing"? I've been around here for a while, and don't even refer to this site as the "Wiki Whiners" any more, and I've yet to be banned or even temporarily blocked.

Awesome! Here's my address!

Elwood Blues
1060 W Addison St.
Chicago, IL 60613

I would say that you have a good degree on integrity both here and on wikien-l, even if your not popular with most contributors of either. That you don't get banned indicates that maybe there are other factors involved. Still it clear it bumps you up in the que to be banned if you seriously post here.

Definition. The Wrong-Intentional Thing In Wikipedia Internal Terms (TWITIWIT) is any criticism of Wikipedia that has the following two properties:

1. True.
2. Non-trivial.

Jonny


Oh, sorry, previous 3-time recipients are not eligible.

Jonny

I like that.

Dtobias is, oddly, more likely to commit TWITIWIT on wikien-l than WR. I think he has a contrary streak.

You know how big they are on categories. As long as they keep all the Category:False Critique in Wikipedia and all the Category:Trivial Critique on the Wikienlist, there's never any problem.

Jonny

The thing is, what makes you guys think that A Man in Black is actually a Wikipedia administrator? We just assume that he is because he says he is. But he doesn't say his Wikipedia username even, and even if he did, we've had dopplegangers here before, so we'd need more proof than that to be certain.

Perhaps A Man in Black is a fan of a Wikipedia admin. People like Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, Antaeus Feldspar, Malber, Grace Note and a few others often act like they are admins when they aren't. I am sure that there are many others in the same boat. Adam Carr, Chip Berlet?

He could be anyone really. So why are we attacking him because of the presumption that he might be a Wiki admin, and hence be evil? He has behaved himself quite well, and would certainly be in the top half of Wikipedia admins, in terms of behaviour on Wikipedia Review. And furthermore many Wikipedia admins are quite nice people. Most of them I would suggest are good, but sadly we are so badly hurt by the few that are bad that it makes it look like they are all bad.

So really we should focus on what he's doing, not on who he is.

Of course not.

The Plautus Satire thing is a joke, see his first block. also see wikiabuse

Additionally, I have an informant that tells me his uncle's name is Mortimer.