User:Fahrenheit451

Fahrenheit451 has been an active Wikipedia editor since March 3, 2005. This user has a career, owns a business, and has considerable media experience, including interviewing Jimmy Wales several times. This user supports the fast track removal of admins who are abusive. All admins should be open to recall. Requests for Deadminship rarely succeed on Wikipedia. An admin who behaves like a Crank knows that an Arbitration Committee likely won't remove adminship. discussion

Some admins go so far to claim "community support" when they win a Request for Adminship. Such claims are not verifiable as Wikipedia currently has about 5.5 million registered editors. It is common for RfA to succeed with around 55 support votes. Dividing the support votes by the number of registered users quickly debunks the community support claim, which in this case would be 0.001% support and the turnout only slighly higher. In this RfA 34 out of the 74 support votes were from admins. Admins represent about 0.024% of the total number of registered Wikipedia editors. So, getting 45% of your support votes from admins could indicate an old boy network or elitist clique that has materialized on Wikipedia. Interesting article on a formerly secret admin mailing list:

My view on the future of Wikipedia, 25 January 2008

The model Wikipedia was based on was very effective in getting it established. However, this model is not effective in maintaining it. When admins elect each other and form cliques, when admins can violate Wikipedia policy with impunity, and when editors are met with the possibility of article vandalism on a regular basis, the opportunity exists for Wikipedia to gradually decline. I think that is occuring. Anyone who is ambitious enough to use it as the basis for an encyclopedia that has stricter edit protections and more specialized and restricted powers of administrators will have a sustainable online encyclopedia.

My current view on the future of Wikipedia, 1 February 2009

I think the concerns that I had one year ago are actively being addressed by the English Wikipedia community. Since then, administrator accountability has gotten ongoing attention and vandalism is being addressed with greater concern.

My current view on the future of Wikipedia, 24 May 2009

Any addressing of administrator issues has only been given lip service. Administrative abuses continue. Wikipedia is on the road to irrelevancy.

'''PS: YES YOU'RE RIGHT HARRY POTTER USES A BROOM! (BUT GOOD MOPS ARE HARD TO FIND!!)'''

Possibly useful links
Special:Statistics Wikiquette Alerts   Fair Use provisions Precedent link  Administrators Mediation_Cabal/Opentask tool  These are our enemies  black pr from ja wpd has two stories on the same item Is this person getting orders from a senior while working on wikipedia? We're innocent Paranoia strikes deep unsubstantiated claim Unanimous keep, but deleted anyway AfD for a link farm Watching for what purpose? Oops Freezone critic Curious revert wpd spreading black pr Spreading more black pr A dialogue badgering mediation is rigamarole tattle taling getting rough The enemies list grows AfD proposed for a clearly notable group Lessons learned to prevent mediation warring Not good faith Vicious attack on myself and Jimmy Wales true makes sense an offer? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_Zone_%28Scientology%29&diff=prev&oldid=146834001 all linkspam? really?] strange don't want to discuss it I am we coaching bad faith and incivility Do they have anything better to do? No. the vote and the threatening response contempt for mediation contempt for arbitration enforcement merely following orders If I have to disruptive comment Incivilty personal attacks more incivility disruption evasive sockpuppet

Links for future work


Requests_for_arbitration/COFS User: ( talk · contribs · [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user=  page moves  ] · block user  · [  block log  ]) has vandalized this page twice on 13 April 2007. This user edits from User:205.227.165.244. 205.227.165.0 - 205.227.165.255