User: EventHorizon
From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.
| Contents |
Mission statement
I was a Wikipedia contributor during 2003, and left that summer because of building incivility. Wikipedia ceased to be what it once was, a wonderful idea in practice, but increasingly over-run by the barbarians.
I've come back because I've realized that this project is important and that, really, the only way to fix it is to fight. By proving myself a valuable contributor, I will gain the recognition, then respect, of this community so I can right it.
I will be harshly critical of users, particularly sysops, who I judge to be detrimental to civility and the Wikipedia community. I hope no one takes this too personally.
Banned users: my opinions
My next project is to read the stories of banned users and determine whether or not the bans were legitimate. Often, blocks and bans are used for improper purposes. If these problems with Wikipedia are not called out, then the project will sink under its own weight.
Therefore, expect me to be studying the histories of banned users to determine whether or not the bans were just. However, it will take time before I can make a verdict; do not expect me to be rapid in my judgment.
User:Paul Vogel - reckless POV pusher; apparent record of trolling, a true problem user.
People who make Wikipedia rock
(The present emptiness of this list is not a statement. I've only been back on for about 3 days.)
People who make Wikipedia suck
Bullies
These are the users who make Wikipedia suck, according to the disenfranchised. Often they are highly influential, though lacking insight that would justify such power, over community matters. They also may sometimes use their administrative privileges to punish users to disagree with them.
I have not encountered any bullies recently; none are presently listed.
Criminal reverters
I have no respect for anyone who reverts, without explanation, a non-vandalistic change. Why? Because, instead of getting into revert wars, it's much better to make continuous improving edits. For example, if someone declares George W. Bush as a "right-wing reactionary", this is clearly inappropriate for Wikipedia, in violation of the NPOV policy, right? Yeah, I agree. To revert the change is unconstructive, though: if the other person is passionate about the edit, he will revert back. Instead, more apporpriate, would be, "George W. Bush, considered by some to be right-wing", or something of the sort. In this way, we can reach compromise rather than devolve into edit-wars and insult-fests.
I will list criminal reverts when I observe them. Please keep in mind that I am not declaring these people to be "problem users"; they should only be classified as such until after they have made several such reverts.
December 3, 2004: One user (forgiven) reverted some material I had posted to Wikipedia, describing it as a "rant". In reality, it was what I considered a neutral synopsis of some very serious criticism made of Wikipedia online. Now, if he had felt my summary was biased, he could have easily made changes to what I had written; this is, after all, a Wiki. That is not what he did. Instead, he showed utter disrespect for my contributions by reverting them without cause.
- Update: He later provided a reasonable case for many of his changes, and seems (tentatively, at least) amenable to compromise, and should not be considered a problem user.
Vandals
I won't be listing vandals here, because most of them don't care, and honestly there are too many of them. But please, may I entreat you: Don't do it. Why? For one thing, it's ineffective-- you will be reverted within 10 minutes, and your changes will be utterly ignored. This is not a white-board for you to slander other people, post offensive images, or insult various religions and political figures. Take your immature fun elsewhere.
Furthermore, vandalism may result in a ban applying both to the vandal and the vandal's IP address. For users of public terminals, as well as people on proxies, this will create problems for innocents.
So don't vandalize: it's seriously uncool.
