Content deleted Content added
→Relevant comment unworthy of collapsing: Reply to Resolutes nonsense one more time |
→Admins not caring to prove or legitimate their "rulings": Reply to Resolute who really isn't helping the discussion and should move on |
||
Line 1,180:
:::::Supposed may be the wrong word, rather it is said "they better should", but "if they do not", then it will not be questioned by any authority. You may prove your allegations, but if not, who cares? Jimbo Wales? Anyone else? Probably not.--[[Special:Contributions/37.230.3.50|37.230.3.50]] ([[User talk:37.230.3.50|talk]]) 01:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
::::::A large majority of indef blocks are related to vandalism, or abuse, and the reasoning is almost always self-evident from the edit history. Also, don't be so arrogant as to think your personal opinions are reflective of "the eyes of the general public". [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 06:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Yep your right. But there have been any documented cases where admins used their knowledge of the system to bait the others (much like your doing to me in the discussion above) to give the an excuse to use the admin tools to block them. Indef is rarely needed even in vandalism and abuse cases. The bigger problem is that no one reviews the admin cases so unless another admin fights for it, the editor always loses. Most of the time they just slip by unnoticed. Even when an admin is caught in the act of foolishness nothing is done about it and that is precisely how the admins want it. You don't see any of them clammering to change the system or working to figure out why people are leaving. Thats all being done by the editors because the majority of admins either don't use the tools at all or are busy trying to figure how to best keep their status on the site. [[User:KumiokoCleanStart|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:KumiokoCleanStart|talk]]) 13:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
* '''Admins are overworked by 150,000 monthly editors:''' People have been trying to get more users authorized as admins to talk with new users about the rules for editing of pages. Unfortunately, if a new article named "John Doe Widgets, Inc." is edited by a username User:John_Doe_Widgits_Inc, then the account is often quickly blocked, and more people are needed to talk in a [[wp:Civil]] manner to explain why the username is inappropriate and the article cannot be kept, but ask the user to consider having a different username and never try to edit such a page. I would suspect most users who name themselves for a corporation (perhaps considered "[[shameless self-promotion]]") will be troublesome in trying to edit other pages without resentment for having their company page deleted and might try to hack a rival company's page instead. It is a very tedious problem, involving thousands of people. Hence, it is amazing that Wikipedia's [[wp:VITAL]] articles are not in worse shape, while dodging all the promotional, tendentious editing for other topics. -[[User_talk:Wikid77|Wikid77]] 01:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
:::Im sorry Wikid, I don't have any sympathy for the poor overworked admins. Much of the "work" is their own doing because they want to protect every page. There are also plenty of people including the 2 of us that want to help but have been told no because the admin tools have been placed on a lofty shelf that few are worthy to reach. Most of the admins couldn't edit a template or a Mediawiki page which is a big reason why the Template editor right was created (that and because there is no trust left in this community). So forgive me if I cannot muster an ounce of sympathy for a self inflicted wound. [[User:KumiokoCleanStart|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:KumiokoCleanStart|talk]]) 01:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
| |||