Wikipedia Sucks!

GreenMeansGo, formerly TimothyJosephWood, is currently experiencing a car crash of an RfA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... eenMeansGo

For someone so opinionated and full of self-belief, it really was a mistake to self-nominate.

It must really suck though, to be opposed or have shade thrown on you, on temperament/judgement grounds, by people who would themselves, had they not already conned their way to the top table, be opposed on the same grounds of they ran for admin today, on their established records. Talk about hiking up the ladder.

Specifically....

-Drmies has no fucking business whatsoever to be talking about having a calm and open mind in situations where perceived racism is an issue

-Kupdung is the last person who should be speaking as if they have the ability to separate personal views from the collective, and maintaining a professional air therein

-SandyGeorgia is not in any position to be speaking of the merits of being calm and humble, as seen by the very example she gave to use against GMG

-Bbb23 is uniquely unqualified to be telling people what is and is not a good way to resolve anything, nor what does and does not give the admin corps a good name

-TonyBallioni talking as if he really knows what toxic behaviour looks like, is just priceless

-Swarm is of course Wikipedia's poster boy for what damage an overconfident admin can wreak

-Black Kite is of course Wikipedia's poster boy for an Administrator's God given right to say and do whatever they like, and at best, a wrist slap is all you will face for it

This is not to say a lot of the opposition isn't perfectly valid and well grounded. But not for the first time, this looks to be a case of an admin candidate who is being kept out of the club not because he is unfit to serve, certainly if we are to judge the standards by measuring the current members, but because the current admins see them as a potential threat to their pretty sweet existence as people who routinely get away with being total hypocrites.

They rightly fear him, particularly those I named above, because this guy has said an awful lot about what makes a bad admin, and his levels of support suggests he could get a lot of people supporting any proposal he might make in furtherance of it, if he had the social and indeed technical power to do so.

And before anyone feels too bad for his lot, you should probably also know GMG is a proper Wikipedia addict, someone who has totally and completely fallen for what the cult is selling. So seeing those sort of people getting a good kicking by their own sacred cow, especially for things they themselves truly believe, is only ever a good thing.

Currently running just above 75% support, so likely to succeed.

Wikipedia is a demonstration how a community of relatively smart people can, with a naive idea of what "consensus" means, and a belief that learning from the past is unnecessary, can tie themselves in knots. How is it that a project with IAR as Rule Number One ends up being absolutely and rigidly conservative, unable to change the most obviously dysfunctional systems.

It quickly became difficult to become an administrator, and even more difficult to remove one. If being admin was really "no big deal," as claimed, it should be the reverse. The early systems did not scale.

Wikiversity actually had an easy system, and it worked better for years, until the developers refused to implement a broad community consensus to create a new class for probationary custodians, with any permanent custodian being able to assign and remove the rights. Suddenly that someone could have admin rights and could see deleted material, without having passed a discussion with consensus (which on Wikiversity could be just a handful of approvals) was Horrible and Illegal, the Sky Will Fall. Except they had that (a remaining probationary custodian with full tools) and did nothing to change it, but the 'crats stopped following community-established policies, making adminstrators scarce on Wikiversity.

(As it stands, any 'crat can assign privileges, on their own lights, and it was always that way, and that this was done with a !vote was a custom, with no rigid standards. There had been one example of an actual rogue custodian, and allowing any permanent custodian to remove the rights was intended to fix that. -- It could have been modified to allow a 'crat to remove, but, instead, it was necessary to go to meta for emergency desysop. I did it, because no crats were available, and nobody else had the balls. Successful, I was. And then there were those threatened by someone willing to act like that .... sooner or later, the result was inevitable, the Muggles win. The wiki was dying. Unless .... )

GMG is, indeed, starry-eyed, could be a good admin, but Wikipedia burns out administrators, even the best tend toward becoming impatient tyrants. Or they get tired of slogging through the muck. There are solutions that would encourage the adults to stick around and supervise, but these have always been furiously resisted. I feel sorry for GMG, even though he is likely to succeed. The de facto structure is abusive. I did a lot of work on Wikipedia toward rescuing noobs in trouble, he talks about that. It is work, through rewarding when they listen, as some do. But in the end, it offends the "not here to build an encyclopedia" trolls, who see no value in diversity.

And without diversity, consensus is meaningless.

Abd wrote:Except they had that (a remaining probationary custodian with full tools) and did nothing to change it, but the 'crats stopped following community-established policies, making adminstrators scarce on Wikiversity.

Not sure I followed this bit. I do recall there being some quasi legal reason for why the permission to view deleted material needs to be subject to community approval.

There's nothing I can see which stops them saying that someone can pass RfA, but remain on probation for a certain period, so their actual competence at being an actual admin can be reviewed. They just don't seem to see the need, even though it has been shown time and again, that established community 'confidence' at RfA is literally no predictor of an admin's actual performance. Literally none. It is just one of the many stupid things about their cult that the Wikipediots just believe is true, because accepting reality (that they're shit at judging/testing people) would crush them.

If GMG passes, he seems like the kind of person who will burn out spectacularly, as must all principled and driven people in that position, usually upon on realisation as to what lying scum their so called peers are. Being an Admin on Wikipedia is about pragmatism and being happy with small victories. Their motto should be, you were stupid enough to ask for this role, so suck it up.

Turns out he threw in the towel at 74%, so I guess he may not be as principled as he surely meant to come across as.

For so many reasons, that was the most hilarious RfA people will see in a long time. It should be required reading, and used as leverage against all those who participated.

Possibly the best proof he was unsuitable, was the fact his withdrawal contained nothing but the usual platitudes......

Withdraw - Thanks for the support from everyone who supported, and to everyone for their honest feedback no matter which camp you fell into. I apologize for mostly wasting a lot of community time, and I'll try my best to pay back that debt that I owe. GMGtalk 15:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

No introspection on display there at all. What has he learned? It really should surprise nobody that he appears to think this was the time for him to keep his counsel. Fool.

He seems to think he is going to be able to continue his Wikipedia career as a normal editor. He won't. Through his own hubris, he is now the black sheep of the community. If he doesn't like eating shit and generally being ignored, he should retire, now.

I'm glad at least one person noted the presence of lots of people in the oppose camp were living in glass houses while throwing stones. Then again, lots of people in the support camp, well, they sure backed a loser, didn't they....some quite strenuously. By your deeds ye shall be known.

In true Wikipedia style, there isn't a single person on that page who doesn't come out of it looking like a dick. Even those who made eminently sensible points - thereby legitimizing the process as if it remotely does the job it is claimed to be doing.

If you're one of those people who think Wikipedia isn't going to eventually die, and from a thousand self-inflicted wounds, then have a go figuring out the positives from this car crash. You will find none.

HTD.

In true Wikipedia style, there isn't a single person on that page who doesn't come out of it looking like a dick.

I beg to differ. Barbara made me chuckle. Now as for the page at the annex, I'll admit that Marek & I both look like jerks. Still, I'm sure I saw a slitherin' sign on GMG's shield when I bled on it... so my gut tells me I wasn't wrong to post his nice little "back off of politics, let the players play" message with all its allusive signifiers. My brain doesn't always agree with my gut... but so be it.

Meanwhile... watching en.wp & fr.wp & even wikitribune deal with the Vincent Bolloré story will be interesting.

The page referred to is the RfA....whatever you've been doing with Marek was not in my thoughts when writing the above.

I'd be surprised if Barbara was there solely to play. If she was, fair play, but she probably shouldn't be confirming that on the open airwaves.