User:Crazynas/sandbox

Working Area

Statement by Crazynas {Non-party}

It seems there are multiple issues at stake here. The biggest one is, it seems a PR one. We believe that we aren't ever done but does the outside world see us this way? Being the seventh most visited site on the internet means something to the outside world, even if it doesn't change our philosophy. We recognized this over a decade ago: however, it seems an open question in what way 'getting it right' applies to other topic areas. It is unclear to me if we can fix this while maintaining our values. The heart of this seems to be an neutrality issue, and here seems to be a bit of a paradox: the people who spend time on topics are usually the ones who have strong opinions about it which is good, but they also end up being the editors forming a consensus regarding the weight, which is not necessarily good. By design, people who involve themselves are considered partisan (the only exceptions I'm aware of are WP:FAC and the like, but this makes it almost impossible to work on achieving 'neutrality' for a third party when there is an imbalance in primary subject authors POV. I suppose this problem is exacerbated in areas where the larger public opinion is more divisive. The cases listed above which include parties listed now that have been involved in multiple cases over ten years is extremely troubling to me. There seems more than enough evidence prima facie to believe that a portion of the named parties cannot edit with neturality

   [1], [2], [3], [4]

Random interesting templates and tidbits

Back to the TOP

Tidbits

Useful MOS Links

• WP:WORDS to watch
  • WP:WEASEL

Quotes

There is a fatal flaw in the system. Vandals, trolls and malactors are given respect, whereas those who are here to actually create an encyclopedia, and to do meaningful work, are slapped in the face and not given the support needed to do the work they need to do.

There is no reason to continue here. RickK 04:32, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm not leaving but it is interesting to consider and I think his words are as relevant now as six years ago.

• [5] - this is an interesting take, by a current arbiter on the 'admin problem'.

• [6] - Trusilver's take on not being an admin any more.

• "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 (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC) -Arbcom motion to remove Trusilver's bit

• User:Larry Sanger/Origins of Wikipedia self explanatory...

• My philosophy on administrators: We're not administrators. We're merely editors with a few extra buttons.User:Shirik

• Please also keep in mind that, short of truly egregious administrator behaviour (such as abusive socking, ban evasion, or unblocking oneself to take an administrative action against an opponent), it is nearly impossible for Arbcom to desysop someone short of the community requesting a case before the Committee. I am sure every arbitrator is aware of situations where desysopping would be the likely outcome should a case be brought, but unless someone in the community is willing to bring that case, our hands are pretty much tied. I don't think that's necessarily bad - Arbcom cannot maintain ongoing assessment of the quality of work of all 900 or so active administrators, and the community has pretty clearly indicated over time that it does not like Arbcom to "go looking" for cases, even to the point of concern about cases brought by arbitrators in their personal role. Risker (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[7]

• Never turn away an idea solely because of its source. Ever. That is an ugly, ugly road to go down, one that leads to utter stagnation and decay. If you disagree with the proposal on its own merits, then that's completely fine. God knows you won't be alone there, and nor should you be; reasoned opposition is the fundamental building block of dispute resolution, and by extension, civilization. But let your opposition stand on its own merits in turn; don't bring ugly partisan politics into it. Writ Keeper 19:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC) [8]

• Well, if you've been (correctly) taught not to cite Wikipedia, you're learning... Eventually you will probably come full circle and figure out what Wikipedia's valid functions are: a first step to further investigation of serious topics and a quick and easy way of learning correct answers to questions dealing with the mundane trivia of daily life. User:Carrite (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[9]

Misc

pageviews

Templates

Editorial Templates

{{cite web}}

{{cite web |url= |title= |author= |date= |work= |publisher= |accessdate=}}

{{cite journal}}

{{cite journal |author= |date= |year= |title= |journal= |volume= |issue= |pages= |publisher= |doi= |pmid= |pmc= |url= |accessdate= }}

User Templates

{{Admin}}

Crazynas (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

{{Unsigned2}}

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazynas (talk • contribs) 06:15, 07 December 1941

{{Usercheck-full|USERNAME}}

Crazynas (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE)

User:Crazynas Translucion

TOP

Never turn away an idea solely because of its source. Ever. That is an ugly, ugly road to go down, one that leads to utter stagnation and decay. If you disagree with the proposal on its own merits, then that's completely fine. God knows you won't be alone there, and nor should you be; reasoned opposition is the fundamental building block of dispute resolution, and by extension, civilization. But let your opposition stand on its own merits in turn; don't bring ugly partisan politics into it. Writ Keeper 19:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC) [10]

Alternate Accounts

• ObjectivismLover (talk · message · contribs · count · logs · email) This is my recent changes patrolling (currently using STiki) account.
• CrazynasBot (talk · message · contribs · count · logs · email) This is my fully automated account (which currently has no tasks), the Bot's userpage documents the historical uses.

Under the Hood

Back to the TOP