User talk:Giano II/archive 6
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I appreciate many are pushing for changes on IRC, as to my mind that is entirely what this is and the last RFArb was centred on, and it is a great pity both cases did not include IRC in their title rather than just my name, as that would have focused people's attention in a more positive way on the problems causing all this mess.
Of course another problem is consensus, but to prevent these problems occurring time and time again a consensus to clean up the Admin channel has to be reached. The immediate and previous trouble makers Betacommand, Chairboy and Naconkantari need to be desysoped as an example of what happens when pointless and vindictive blocks are executed by inexperienced admins sent by others. The two following links give just a mild flavour of some of the problems such behaviour has caused:
It seems Kelly Martin and Co. are being "sweetness and light" on the channel at the moment (are they are running scared?) but the very moment this case is closed the problem will just begin again. The arbcom could fix things so I appear to be being left alone, but what about Irpen and the other editors with whom they disagree? Many of them are less vociferous then me. Then of course the great unanswered question is how many unknown editors have they already driven off, that we never even knew about, the good editors who just quietly disappear.
The arbcom have a few of the very many logs circulating. If they fail to address the problems, which they now know full well exist, then future troubles will make the present seem as nothing. This is not said as a threat from me, but as a fact which is blindingly obvious to many many editors. Giano 22:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
How am I feeling? Pretty pissed off! I was talking to another well known and respected editor yesterday - he still is adamant he is not returning in the forseable future - the way he has been treated who can blame him. Others are editing - albeit at a very reduced rate - the enthusiasm is no longer there.
I blame the arbcom completely for this mess (not the new individuals - they have only been there 5 minutes) but the others, and that includes God knows how many others on the arb-list long retired who still have an input. These people have known about all this IRC "rubbishing of other editors" for years, (one leading present arbcom member is one of the chief culprits) - but the arbcom have clubbed together to save their own. This encyclopedia should be run like a university, as it is it is managed like an establishment for mal-adjusted infants.
I have been fortunate to mix with some of the (IMO) best and most qualified people in the world to write on their individual subjects. I don't say this lightly as I know the identities of some of them. That these people (who universities would fight to employ) are treated with such disdain by a pack of semiliterate high school kids is depressing, because it spells the writing on the wall for wikipedia.
It has been suggested I take an interest in RFAs, but I don't want to mould future administrators - it is up to the arbcom to define strict criteria to ensure only the responsible get through. As it is any little fool who has chatted on IRC for ten days can become an admin, and attack long and established editors of the highest calibre, I don't refer to myself as I can throw a punch with the best of them. I refer to those who have written brilliant pages for this project, but disappear when a little twit with an admin badge threatens them. If these tiresome admins don't like testy bad tempered old professors (I am not one) then stay away from centres of academia - which is what wikipedia should be. These people are the soul of the project. They are creating not only the encyclopedia but its reputation for excellence.
I only mix (by my limitations of interests) with an artistic/literary crowd, but I have been informed by no less a person than a European Finance Minister that Wikipedia's "economics department" is of the very highest standard and consulted. Professors of economics at one leading university now google whole phrases from student essays to ensure they are not lifted wholesale from Wikipedia. I know for certain (a close relation was the culprit) that one professor was handed his own plagiarised work. I also know for certain that pages on International European Law can only have been written by lawyers of the highest standing. Why should these people freely donating their valuable time have to contend with a bunch of kids from IRC? Wikipedia is more than fortunate to have these people. If keeping a pack of unruly kids and fools off the backs of leading experts is preferential treatment, then yes they should be given preferential treatment, just as they would be in any other seat of learning. I can tell you categorically that one of Britain's most eminent and respected writers has left Wikipedia tired of it all.
Wikipedia has been very very fortunate in its editors but it now has a problem! and it needs to address it now! The good editors need to be encouraged and retained. Wikipedia is not an ego trip for a few admins and arbs who couldn't write a sensible academic page to save their lives. The arbcom have the IRC logs. They have the proof. Now they need to stand up and be brave enough to do what we voted them into power to do. They need to sort it now, not tomorrow, now! Giano 10:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- You say "It has been suggested I take an interest in RFAs, but I don't want to mould future administrators - it is up to the arbcom to define strict criteria to ensure only the responsible get through." We have no power to do that, and, frankly, are dependent as you are with respect to selection of administrators. There just isn't enough time to attend to it. To vote knowledgeably I would have to spend time investigating the edits and actions of the candidates. I can't do that due to other projects and arbitration duties. I would like to see some changes made, but my opinion in that regard is little more than that of any user. I would simply see more care taken and that arbitrary requirements not be imposed. Fred Bauder 22:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)