User talk:Webdrone/Entitlement

Requested move 13 August 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved ceradon (talk • edits) 01:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Entitlement → User:Webdrone/Entitlement – Normally, we keep angry, ranting screeds attacking administrators in userspace, not project space. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, maybe. Inclined to agree^. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 21:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No reason for this to be in the project space. ~ Rob^Talk 22:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion. No reason for this to be deleted — I merely observed a situation unfold and expressed a personal opinion about it, which many other editors may identify with and believe to be the case. Keeping it in project space gives the chance to like-minded editors to reference it if they wish to do so.
To address concerns raised, I can assure you that it is not spiteful nor angry, neither does it "attack admins" as a group, just describing the behaviour of some of the individuals belonging to the group. It is a very calm position which I came to as an external observer to another situation. Lastly, it hardly classifies as a screed compared to most other essays on Wikipedia. Webdrone (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but (despite the fact that some have brought it up) the actual thing being proposed is userfication of this essay. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the objection to the essay that admins are mentioned at all, or that it isn't prefaced that it applies to only some admins?—Bagumba (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is my position that the essay represents a somewhat extreme, minority viewpoint. While such things are not against the rules, it is generally considered a best practice to keep them in the user space of the user who authored them. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support userfication An essay in WP space can be a minority view, but it should be based on something related to improving the encyclopedia. This kind of rant, with no factual basis, only acts to poison the community by promoting the false view that admins run riot—the take-home message provides encouragement for edit warriors and POV pushers that any admin action against them is unfair and merely due to the admin having a sense of entitlement. It's actually the reverse which is correct—it's the warriors who feel entitled to keep pushing because they are right. Johnuniq (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

About the move[edit]

I cannot see how any of Johnuniq's comments were "well said". On improving the encyclopaedia I would urge you to read the last paragraph of the essay, where a point is made on the importance of acknowledging the problem and combating it for the good of the project. There is factual basis, but I refrained from citing anything lest it be (mis)construed as a personal attack. I preferred to tolerate a bit of vagueness to avoid offending anyone. Further, nowhere in that essay do I mention edit warriors; the essay is not directed at those situations.

The fact that ceradon took it upon himself/herself to move this to user-space in the middle of the discussion and without reaching consensus does not do the comment "false view that admins run riot" any favours. Here is a chance for the admins to show this is not the case. Webdrone (talk) 09:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move disussion closed after 5 hours[edit]

So, just *5 hours* after the move request, the discussion is closed, and the move performed, by the same person who requested it, with a pejorative log-message.

This behaviour appears to be what the essay describes, a real phenomenon, then, and thus deserving of a place in the wikipedia-namespace.

Therefore, this move should be undone, and maybe the discussion reopened. In that case, consider this message an oppose, as the perception of entitlement is apparently so ingrained in some, they refuse to even acknowledge its existence.

My advise to the one who did the move: Take the content of the essay to heart, as it applies to you. Very POV, BITE and just plain rude of her/him, imho and, as a display of perceived entitlement, detrimental to project as a whole. That's my $0.02. - Buzz-tardis (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC) Edit: strike same person -- sorry, that's a misreading on my part. Still, 5 hours? Really? This kind of behaviour is why I mostly just gnome around here. - 17:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I iniated the move discussion, so you've got your facts wrong there. It is standard procedure to keep things like this in user space, see WP:ESSAY, which reads, in part: "Essays may be moved into userspace (or deleted) if they are found to be unhelpful" and also "User essays: These are similar to essays placed in the Wikipedia namespace; however, they are often authored/edited by only one person, and may represent a strictly personal viewpoint about Wikipedia or its processes." In the unlikely event that a poorly-composed essay obviously written in anger at the prompting of another angry user actually begins getting widely cited by other users I would agree with moving it back to project space. Right now, not so much. I really think it is time for everyone involved in the drama of the last day or two (including myself, so don't expect further comment) just drop it for a while. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Beeblebrox[reply]

The beauty of their plan here is that if I dare revert the undue move, I will be deemed as a disruptive editor who does not respect the will of the Admins. This way, they get to ignore the problem by pushing it under the rug and they get their way, not bothering to engage in further discussion as you see here -- after Beeblebrox et al. got their way they disengaged from the discussion like it no longer concerns them. Anw, thanks for buzzing in -- the only comment I should make is that ceradon was the one who performed the move, Beeblebrox was the one who suggested it. Webdrone (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was a justified move. Angry rants that bring down the morality of the site don't belong in projectspace. You might feel more welcome at Wikipediocracy. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, if we could all just pretend that nothing is ever wrong or needs to change, the world would be a better place. Webdrone (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Webdrone: did it ever occur to you, while writing that polemical rant, that the subject of your musing is human? That it isn't a robot behind the actions that administrators do, but a human being, feelings and emotions and all? Perhaps, instead of throwing around vague accusations of entitlement, you should confront whomever it is your have beef with, lay out your case, and have them explain why they did whatever it is you think they did wrong? Or are you merely content with slinging shit at administrator silhouettes? I'll give you a hint: one of those options is productive in a collaborative environment, the other is cowardice. Take your pick. I'm not asking you to rent your clothes and scream at the top of your lungs, "Woe is me, the job of Wikipedia administrator is tough!" No. I don't need that. But I am looking for a little humanity and compassion. But, humanity and compassion are overrated on the internet. The price we pay for anonymity, I suppose. This is also quite relevant. --ceradon (talk • edits) 16:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceradon:, while I appreciate you are human I do not understand why you would feel that the essay applied to you, unless you recognise in it some of your own actions. The humanity you seem to be so eager to invoke vanishes when one takes a look at your history and the way you treated some editors, including me in this case. In any case, the essay simply describes a problem other editors may also face and suggests that authority figures and persons of power accept criticism easier and engage from an equal standpoint in discussions. The aim is to improve the collaboration on Wikipedia and allow for more efficient exchange of ideas which stand tests of truth, rather than ideas which stand tests of authority. Webdrone (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You really do not appear to get it, so this conversation is over. --ceradon (talk • edits) 17:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it had been kept open longer it would have just been a bigger WP:SNOWBALL in favor of moving it, though I agree from a WP:PROCESS point of view a full day might have been better. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We already have an essay on "entitlement"[edit]

It's called WP:No vested contributors, and WP:ENTITLED has long been a shortcut to it. I made WP:ENTITLEMENT go there, too, since it's unreasonable to expect editors to memorize a syntactic variation that minor just to distinguish between a long community-accepted essay based in WP:OWN policy and WP:COMMONSENSE metapolicy, vs. some anti-admin rant in userspace. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For concerned parties[edit]

For anyone who gives a damn about the behaviour of (powerful) creatures of this project, this occurred earlier today. The summary is, of course, absurd. Webdrone (talk) 13:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fairly spot on, actually. ~ Rob^Talk 14:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) And accusing someone of "littering" on Wikipedia is totally reasonable, right. Your message was wholly non-constructive, they had every right to revert it from their own talk page, what kind of a response do you imagine they should have given you? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I suppose apologising for directing that extremely offensive and in no way relevant video to me was too much to expect. You are absolutely right, let's not be unreasonable. Webdrone (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]