User talk:Dave33333/User Rights Party and the Control Party

But where does the Militant Tendency fit into all this?!?!?--Imperator Johnson (Defender of Fanon 15:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Shurg, look at the update. -- Dave33333   The Epic King   has returned!  16:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I strongly believe we should give the "What" system a chance. I was raised in the country by a family who strongly believed in the "What" political system. I know all it's benefits and disadvantages, have weighed them, and can say, without fear of contradiction, that indulging in the "What" system will ultimately be highly beneficial for our community as a whole.

With regards, Mr Cow2 (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

In the name of all that is holy...
Where do I even begin with this mess?

How about I start with the logical contradiction you've presented with these "parties" you mention. If anyone would be theoretical republicans, it would be the admins as we don't really like all of these crazy changes you guys have been proposing. Just saying. Democrats (in this case, the normal userbase) often push for completely unrealistic proposals that work well in theory, but fall apart completely when put into action.

Anyway, that's not what I'm here to talk about. What really bothers me about about your post is this:

"And a serious problem is that we're being denied our policies and our rightful positions as admin and rollback."

- Dave33333

Dave, you're not being denied anything by anyone.

Adminship is not a foregone conclusion on a wiki, nor is it an expected reward for longevity and consistent activity. Adminship is a privilege and the acceptance of certain duties to keep this wiki in its best shape possible at all times. Becoming an administrator means accepting the fact that you have become the face of this wiki to outsiders. Becoming the beholders of the website's reputation and operation is not a light job which should just be rewarded willy-nilly.

Administrators are required to demonstrate consistent and continued excellence and to be the best they can on this wiki. They have ascended to this position from tireless hours of hard work, often with many HQAs and UQAs under their belts. EDFan, for example, had been on this wiki for SIX years before he became admin in 2015(?). He didn't get promoted because it was "his time", he got promoted because he had become a positive force in the community and had started producing lots of quality content. Even if admins aren't always at their best, they were elected to this position because their contributions to the site have proven that their best is something to be celebrated.

You need to understand that nobody "deserves" to be an administrator. It isn't a gift given for being a good person in general or for being friendly with those who are already in power. NOBODY is entitled to ANY position on this website. People have risen to the ranks they are at because of the positive contributions they've made. Most importantly, adminship is a RESPONSIBILITY, not a REWARD.

This goes for everybody reading this message: If you think you have what it takes, then apply when the time is right. If you pass, then congratulations and welcome to the club - get working. If not, think about why you didn't win (hint: it's not a conspiracy to keep you out of power). Look honestly at your flaws and think about why they might stop people from voting for you. Work to improve yourself so that you will win next time. Anyone can do it with enough effort.

You also state that your policies are being "denied" by the administration. Have you considered that your policy proposals might be stupid? That they might have some fatal flaw that you're too blind to notice just because you wrote it? It's happened to all of us at some point, but policies end up going through because of consensus, not because of one bloc forcing their demands on to another.

"We need change in this wiki and no admin will help us in the process due to their stubbornness. These admins have the power all in their heads in my opinion."

- Dave33333

Many people think change is needed, and I understand that perfectly. We've all been in your shoes before and have all wanted drastic change in a short period of time, but the powers that be are all that are preventing such a revolution.

But let me be frank - the admins aren't stopping you because they're stubborn. They're stopping you because they have legitimate grievances with some of the ideas that have been put forward. I'll be the first to say that a lot of these new policy ideas sound FANTASTIC on paper, but that they will operate terribly when actually put into action for a multitude of reasons (bad faith, gaming the system, disrepair etc.).

Remember that these policies aren't being shot down and taken out of debate before they're voting on - that's wrong on our part. These policies are losing to a VOTE. And in case you forgot, admins are also users who have the same voting rights you do.

Dave, after the last tongue-lashing I gave out, you seem to be one of the only people still hell-bent on pushing through your radical ideas and starting fights. Why? This post isn't made to offend or take shots at you, but it's meant to debunk a common claim that change isn't getting pushed through because there's some sort of "conspiracy" against the common user base or something like that. If you think that there is a systematic bias against the normal userbase by the administrators, PROVE IT. Nobody is obligated to listen to any claims that are made without evidence to back it up.

Similarly, if you think your ideas are best for this wiki, PROVE IT and provide evidence to back it up. There are more active users on this wiki than there are administrators. If the normal userbase wants change and can agree on how to execute it, the administrators can't do anything about it. The reason that the change you want isn't happening isn't because it's being stopped by the powers that be, it's because your ideas are being stopped by your companions as well who also see legitimate issues with what is being put forward.

Very soon, there will only be four admins left. They don't want to start fights with you or anyone else, they just want to keep this site at peace and to edit to the best of their ability. There will always be enough votes to override what four admins think is wrong. If you think your case is strong enough, start campaigning fairly and graciously.

I'm going to sign off with a life lesson for everyone reading this:

Never be afraid to apply for the lofty jobs of rollback, or administrator, or even bureaucrat. You will always have those who support you and those who want to see you fail. If you happen to fail, don't claim systematic abuse unless there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to prove your point. If you fail, try again. To quote the late General George A. Custer:

"It's not how many times you get knocked down that count, it's how many times you get back up."

We'll be rooting for you, Dave. We'll be rooting to see change happen in good faith, no matter who the change comes from. I'll always be here to support those who show a positive and productive vision for the future of this wiki.

-- Bro  Talk to me! 15:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)