Jump to content

User:Trusilver: Difference between revisions

This user is a WikiKnight.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Reverted edits by Wiki9995455 (talk) to last revision by Trusilver (HG)
mNo edit summary
Line 53: Line 53:
'''Wikiphilosophy:'''
'''Wikiphilosophy:'''


''Concerning [[WP:RFU|Requests for Unblock]]:'' I don't have a lot of tolerance for unblock requests that sit for days or weeks because nobody can muster up the balls to make a decision. There are remarkably few administrators that are willing to make tough decisions; it's far easier to pass on something and let someone else handle it than to make a difficult decision yourself. The problem is when EVERY administrator just sits on their collective asses waiting for someone else to do something. Wikipedia is run by volunteers, even someone who has been blocked. As such, any serious unblock request deserves respect, and should be acted on with respect. The breakdown in the system occurs when you have a dozen administrators, including the blocking admin, gathered around (pardon the imagery) with their thumbs up their asses because nobody wants to be the one to step forward and say "Sure, I'll do it... here's my conditions."
''Concerning [[WP:RFU|Requests for Unblock]]:'' I don't have a lot of tolerance for unblock requests that sit for days or weeks because nobody can muster up the balls to make a decision. There are remarkably few administrators that are willing to make tough decisions; it's far easier to pass on something and let someone else handle it than to make a difficult decision yourself. The problem is when EVERY administrator just sits on their collective asses waiting for someone else to do something. Wikipedia is run by volunteers, even someone who has been blocked. As such, any serious unblock request deserves respect, and should be acted on with respect. The breakdon in the system occurs when you have a dozen administrators, including the blocking admin, gathered around (pardon the imagery) wit their thumbs up their asses because nobody wants to be the one to step forward and say "Sure, I'll do it... here's my conditins."
⚫
''Concerning deletionism/iclusionism:'' I refuse to attach a label to myself. I think that it is a foolish endeavor that divides us more than it identifies u. I find each extreme to be just as damaging as the other. However, I find that the integrity of the encyclopedia demands tha there be more of a criteria for inclusion than just [[WP:V]]. We have guidelines for notability that have been agreed on by consesus and as such I have very little use for the kind of editor that feels that those guidelines don't apply to them or the article that they have chosen to defend in AfD. Put fifteen Wikipedians in a room together and you will get sixteen distinct opinions on hat is "encyclopedic", but that is what we have guidelines for.

⚫
''Concerning RfA:'' "Democracy is the worst form of government except all the othersthat have been tried." So said Churchhill, and I feel the same way about the RfA process. The process is ridiculous and cumbersome not to mention a playground for all of the grudges and pissing matches that are more suited to the schoolyard. So sayeth Jimb: adminship is [[WP:BIGDEAL|"no big deal"]]. I don't treat it as such. My criteria for supporting an RfA are very simple:
⚫
''Concerning deletionism/inclusionism:'' I refuse to attach a label to myself. I think that it is a foolish endeavor that divides us more than it identifies us. I find each extreme to be just as damaging as the other. However, I find that the integrity of the encyclopedia demands that there be more of a criteria for inclusion than just [[WP:V]]. We have guidelines for notability that have been agreed on by consensus and as such I have very little use for the kind of editor that feels that those guidelines don't apply to them or the articles that they have chosen to defend in AfD. Put fifteen Wikipedians in a room together and you will get sixteen distinct opinions on what is "encyclopedic", but that is what we have guidelines for.
⚫
# Demonstrate a comprehensive knowledge of Wikipedia and admin functions.(this doesn't in any way mean you have to participate in all facets of Wikipedia, but just that you have a clue and can explain hw things work if you need to.)

⚫
# Avoid Wikipolitics and [[WP:BIKE|bureaucracy creep.]] (If you spend a unusually large amount of time involved with [[WP:RFC|Requests for Drama]], [[WP:PITCHFORKS]], and projectspace disussions to the point that the encylopedia starts looking to be an afterthought to you, then I will under no circumstances supportyou.)
⚫
''Concerning RfA:'' "Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." So said Churchhill, and I feel the same way about the RfA process. The process is ridiculous and cumbersome, not to mention a playground for all of the grudges and pissing matches that are more suited to the schoolyard. So sayeth Jimbo: adminship is [[WP:BIGDEAL|"no big deal"]]. I don't treat it as such. My criteria for supporting an RfA are very simple:
⚫
# Be around for a nominal period of time. (For me this is about thre months depending on how active you are. Enough that we can see a broad spectrum of contributions.
⚫
# Demonstrate a comprehensive knowledge of Wikipedia and admin functions. (this doesn't in any way mean you have to participate in all facets of Wikipedia, but just that you have a clue and can explain how things work if you need to.)
⚫
''Concerning Edit count, and all he little stupid things we worry too much about:'' I have a huge edit count. Big deal. I have a huge edit count because I spend ll of my time reverting vandalism, and doing all of the little background tasks that allow people like [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzi|this guy,]] or [[User:Tarif Ezaz|this guy,]] or even [[User talk:93.96.148.42|this guy,]] to not have to worry about such thing while they are working on the encyclopedia. I consider myself a cog in the machine. Not a bigger or more important cog than any o the others, just one among many. Another thousand edits won't change that, another ten thousand won't change that.
⚫
# Avoid Wikipolitics and [[WP:BIKE|bureaucracy creep.]] (If you spend an unusually large amount of time involved with [[WP:RFC|Requests for Drama]], [[WP:PITCHFORKS]], and projectspace discussions to the point that the encylopedia starts looking to be an afterthought to you, then I will under no circumstances support you.)
⚫
My edits ar not always perfect but are always made with the best intentions. If I made a mistake somewhere then I apologize and am happy to dscuss it with you. If I copyedited your article and chopped it all to hell, I only ask that you take some time and consider he changes before you get upset about it. Likewise, when I patrol the recent changes I occasionally revert something as vandalism when it turns out not to be. I am only human and when I'm reverting a hundred incidents of vandalism a day, I occasionally make a change that was not warranted.
⚫
# Be around for a nominal period of time. (For me this is about three months depending on how active you are. Enough that we can see a broad spectrum of contributions.)

⚫
''Concerning Edit count, and all the little stupid things we worry too much about:'' I have a huge edit count. Big deal. I have a huge edit count because I spend all of my time reverting vandalism, and doing all of the little background tasks that allow people like [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|this guy,]] or [[User:Tarif Ezaz|this guy,]] or even [[User talk:93.96.148.42|this guy,]] to not have to worry about such things while they are working on the encyclopedia. I consider myself a cog in the machine. Not a bigger or more important cog than any of the others, just one among many. Another thousand edits won't change that, another ten thousand won't change that.

⚫
My edits are not always perfect but are always made with the best intentions. If I made a mistake somewhere then I apologize and am happy to discuss it with you. If I copyedited your article and chopped it all to hell, I only ask that you take some time and consider the changes before you get upset about it. Likewise, when I patrol the recent changes I occasionally revert something as vandalism when it turns out not to be. I am only human and when I'm reverting a hundred incidents of vandalism a day, I occasionally make a change that was not warranted.




Revision as of 15:45, 6 October 2011

"Refusing to adhere to the rules when they go against one's conscience is noble and commendable. My vote at this point is not punishment, but rather an acknowledgement that Trusilver's scruples are not consistent with the expectations of an administrator, and that he is too principled to suppress his principles for the sake of retaining the bit."

— Steve Smith
File:800px-non-Admin JollyRoger.GIF
Prepare to be boarded, matey.

It's hard to be upset about losing my administrator status for being too principled. The problem apparently is that I'm a completely unapologetic idealist. I would rather lose my bit for making decisions that are in the spirit of Wikipedia but against its rules than follow the rules when they fly directly in the face of the spirit of Wikipedia.

When my daughter was thirteen, I had briefly gotten her involved with Wikipedia. She found a couple tasks that she enjoyed and performed admirably. We wrote a couple minor articles together and just generally had a good time with it. One day I asked her if she wanted to help me out with something and she declined. I asked if there was anything wrong and she told me that "Because almost everyone there is a bunch of fakes who like Wikipedia because they have power over others." While it's possible that this is a little bit on the harsh side, there is a kernel of truth to her words. A large number of Wikipedians, and a disproportionate number of Wikipedians who hold the mop and/or sit in positions of authority, have huge inferiority complexes. They are generally useless and unknown people away from the internet, so they make up for their shortcomings by lording any shred of power they get over others on the internet.

I once told a friend here that the worst thing I could wish on someone is to "be involved." Anyone who is competent at article building and other worthwhile tasks, please... don't become an administrator. The path of the admin is a dark one, it's the one where you give up all the good things that you do, a little at a time, and find yourself mired down in a bureaucracy. The biggest quality that I look for in an administrator is integrity. When I was faced with the choice of surrendering the mop or my own integrity, I chose to surrender the mop. It wasn't a hard decision, really.

It might make it sound as though I feel there are no good administrators on Wikipedia. That couldn't be further from the truth, there are absolutely amazing administrators on the project. There are administrators here that surrender enormous amounts of time for the good of project. Unfortunately, admins rarely become so for these good qualities, they become admins by being political... by playing the game and jumping through the right hoops when commanded to. This is a pity, and as such I am committed to RfA reform.

The most worthwhile Wikipedians are the ones that gain the least recognition and desire the least. These are the ones who really make Wikipedia what it is.

For all the barnstars and other random crap I have picked up over the years, look here.

This editor is subject to recall under certain conditions. (Not to be de-sysopped, but rather to take up the mop again)

Wikiphilosophy:

Concerning Requests for Unblock: I don't have a lot of tolerance for unblock requests that sit for days or weeks because nobody can muster up the balls to make a decision. There are remarkably few administrators that are willing to make tough decisions; it's far easier to pass on something and let someone else handle it than to make a difficult decision yourself. The problem is when EVERY administrator just sits on their collective asses waiting for someone else to do something. Wikipedia is run by volunteers, even someone who has been blocked. As such, any serious unblock request deserves respect, and should be acted on with respect. The breakdon in the system occurs when you have a dozen administrators, including the blocking admin, gathered around (pardon the imagery) wit their thumbs up their asses because nobody wants to be the one to step forward and say "Sure, I'll do it... here's my conditins." Concerning deletionism/iclusionism: I refuse to attach a label to myself. I think that it is a foolish endeavor that divides us more than it identifies u. I find each extreme to be just as damaging as the other. However, I find that the integrity of the encyclopedia demands tha there be more of a criteria for inclusion than just WP:V. We have guidelines for notability that have been agreed on by consesus and as such I have very little use for the kind of editor that feels that those guidelines don't apply to them or the article that they have chosen to defend in AfD. Put fifteen Wikipedians in a room together and you will get sixteen distinct opinions on hat is "encyclopedic", but that is what we have guidelines for. Concerning RfA: "Democracy is the worst form of government except all the othersthat have been tried." So said Churchhill, and I feel the same way about the RfA process. The process is ridiculous and cumbersome not to mention a playground for all of the grudges and pissing matches that are more suited to the schoolyard. So sayeth Jimb: adminship is "no big deal". I don't treat it as such. My criteria for supporting an RfA are very simple:

  1. Demonstrate a comprehensive knowledge of Wikipedia and admin functions.(this doesn't in any way mean you have to participate in all facets of Wikipedia, but just that you have a clue and can explain hw things work if you need to.)
  2. Avoid Wikipolitics and bureaucracy creep. (If you spend a unusually large amount of time involved with Requests for Drama, WP:PITCHFORKS, and projectspace disussions to the point that the encylopedia starts looking to be an afterthought to you, then I will under no circumstances supportyou.)
  3. Be around for a nominal period of time. (For me this is about thre months depending on how active you are. Enough that we can see a broad spectrum of contributions.

Concerning Edit count, and all he little stupid things we worry too much about: I have a huge edit count. Big deal. I have a huge edit count because I spend ll of my time reverting vandalism, and doing all of the little background tasks that allow people like this guy, or this guy, or even this guy, to not have to worry about such thing while they are working on the encyclopedia. I consider myself a cog in the machine. Not a bigger or more important cog than any o the others, just one among many. Another thousand edits won't change that, another ten thousand won't change that. My edits ar not always perfect but are always made with the best intentions. If I made a mistake somewhere then I apologize and am happy to dscuss it with you. If I copyedited your article and chopped it all to hell, I only ask that you take some time and consider he changes before you get upset about it. Likewise, when I patrol the recent changes I occasionally revert something as vandalism when it turns out not to be. I am only human and when I'm reverting a hundred incidents of vandalism a day, I occasionally make a change that was not warranted.


That which must never be forgotten (a.k.a. a collection of essays that express the greatest truths that can be offered on the project. In other words... if you are new to Wikipedia, READ THESE as they are the cliff notes to surviving your Wikicareer.):

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Trusilver&oldid=454247270"