Why do so many negative people edit Wikipedia?

Lately I've noticed a several people around Wikipedia whose only purpose seems to be to criticise and take offence at every single thing that goes on. These people range from new editors, to admins who have been here for years.

For example: there are numerous editors with a ridiculous idea that admins are out to "get them". To them, Wikipedia is an online battle: the fight between the editors and IRC admins... utter nonsense. It is certainly childish playground mentality at best. There are no gangs, for goodness sake.

There are other editors whose purpose is to act like some sort of martyr amongst their friends. Deliberate trolling is stuck up for under the guise of "opinions are allowed", and when the troll is blocked, the troll is made out to be a hero. Madness.

Then there's the infamous requests for adminship page. This is the best place to find negative people - just look at the oppose column on any random RFA! OK, not all opposes are dumb. I actually saw a fairly decent oppose today, based on age of all things. It's fine to oppose people - I've done it myself, numerous times. The problem is, the ideology several people have. They actually come to the RFA looking for reasons to say "no". Unbelievable - it's not like we have a limit on how many admins we can have. What's wrong with being positive, and looking for reasons to say yes? I simply can't understand the negativity of some people. And then, there's the opposes themselves. Let's face it, many opposes are scraping the barrel. But when such opposes are as blunt as "No frickin' way", we have problems. What an insulting way to say no. How completely unnecessary. Yet, people do it.

The negative people on Wikipedia are thankfully a minority. Most of us edit for fun, and have a good time doing it. We don't go looking for fights, or enemies to make, and we get on writing articles or whatnot. I hope these negative people aren't as angry and sour in real life.

Majorly RfC

So I created an RfC on myself. Following a rather disasterous RfA that I nominated, it was felt by some people that my actions on, and surrounding that RfA were inappropriate, or in some people's word's "despicable". Now, I offered to nominate Jamie months ago, after noticing her good work on articles on Christian Music. I started to talk to her on IRC, and after much persuasion she accepted a nomination. I regret very much that I did this. If I'd known how vicious the RfA crowd were this week, I'd have kept well away. As it happens, I didn't. Jamie unfortunately had the kind of username that gives away age. It seems the age crowd only like coming out at certain times: just a couple of months ago, another editor passed his third RfA without a big problem. And of course, we all know of Anonymous Dissident, who passed with 165 supports and a single oppose, in 2007. The age crowd must have been on vacation that week. I wonder if they'd have opposed if they had seen it, or knew his real age? I can only guess yes. Looking at some of the age opposes, some of them are well-reasoned, but others are just really awful. Consider oppose #1: "Kid admins have generally poor judgement". This shows that this particular opposer is already biased before they voted. OK, we all have our standards. This editor has made it clear they never support teenagers. But my issue here is not the fact they have their standards, or their opinion. It's the blatant abuse of the process. When voting, you are supposed to review the candidate yourself for a good idea of what they're like. It's rather clear that this editor, and others neglected this important part of the process. It's all very well them saying they did afterwards, but the fact is, they have generalised, and stereotyped this editor without giving them a fair analysis.

So, since my candidate is getting this rather poor treatment, I am naturally angry. I make a few comments, to the point of proposing that people don't actually have to look at contributions anymore, but can oppose for whatever reason they like (it's a vote after all). I start "badgering" a few people. Such people would not need badgering if they gave the candidate a fair review. You don't see me questioning the user who had issues with Jamie's AfD votes do you? That's because it's a completely fair oppose, and shows the user took the time to review her fairly. I'll "badger" votes that do not do this. It's incredibly easy to vote on an RfA. You can vote with "per above", "Not enough experience", "needs more time" etc - all are more acceptable that someone stating "Kid admins generally are immature". The funny thing is, I've not seen one smidgen of evidence proving that statement is true. Judging by some of the voters on the RfA, and the behaviour I've seen of some adult admins, I'd say the opposite is true. Jamie's conduct through the RfA was pretty exceptional. Obviously, hardly anyone noticed this under the dust cloud.

What is now really irritating me, is that some of the opposers are using me as the scapegoat for causing her RfA to go downhill! The only people causing her RfA to go anywhere are the opposers. If they want to make frankly ridiculous votes saying "The nominator's behaviour is less than satisfactory", that's their lookout. I would hope such votes are discounted in the end - even the age ones are better than that. Really, these people are that desperate to oppose someone, that when they find nothing wrong with the candidate, they move to the nominator! Actually I've seen similar - where people oppose per whoever is supporting, and their contributions. It's so unbelievably negative. And to think that if she had simply left the fact she's in school of her userpage, she'd probably be doing so much better now! It really sucks.

And now on to me. An admin by the name of Jennavecia, probably better known as LaraLove has decided I should be desysopped. This is following from nearly 9 months of particularly unpleasant encounters with this woman - I had, for a while been considering to create a requests for comments page on myself - I know I'm controversial, and have done some stupid things. She told me that an RfC was in the works. However I have grown impatient, and wish to get this thing out in the open, so I created it myself. Soon after its creation, Giggy whom I nominated for bureaucrat on Commons, spewed out a load of diffs, dating back to late 2007. There were so many! I went through each and every one. There was, perhaps, fewer than 5 really serious incidents. Each I admitted to and apologised for as necessary. There were a great many where he presented the evidence in a skewed manner, apparently deliberately linking to logs in such a way to make me look worse than I was. There were cases where I did minor things like endorse the block of someone, expressed my feelings about the BAG process and protected a page, which I began discussion on a mere 19 days later. Others were more major, but I don't need to discuss those here. I admitted I was wrong there and then, and no more needs to be said there.

Anyway, a bunch of people have turned up, and if I wasn't all too awake this morning, I could have sworn I most of those people somewhere else - wait, I remember - RfA! Yes, it's every chronic opposer on the block, from Iridescent to Kojidude, to Malleus Fatuorum to Friday! They're all there, and they're all agreeing. I don't know what to think of this. I really don't.

Then Jenna, aka Lara showed up, and proposed I be desysopped. Unlike the other people who made statements or proposals, Lara had nothing pleasant to say about me. This doesn't surprise me. She has told me before that she doesn't like me, and the feeling is mutual. What I don't understand, is why does she dislike me so much? I mean, I don't think Friday and I will ever agree on anything, but at least he had something positive to say, along with a lot of negative. Her description of me sounds like that of a vandal, or banned user. Now, as someone who has been on this site for over 2 years, and dedicated a hell of a lot of time to various aspects of the site, I am pretty offended to be described so harshly. Perhaps it's all true, but still, it's not nice to read. Then again, with my experience of Lara, she does say exactly what she thinks, though on-wiki she's mild compared to off (and where she thinks I can't see).

Anyway, I was given the choice - RfA or ArbCom? It was an easy choice. Just looking at the shithole I threw poor Jamie into, I'd go for ArbCom any day. If they desysop me, so be it. If not, I'll take the points from the RfC into account, and step back from RfA for a while. I actually want to do something else for a bit anyway, so it works out well either way for me.

Stuff

Apologies for the unoriginal title... not much to say, except I am giving my admin account a break, and am using Al tally (my IRC nick) for editing at the moment. Writing stuff is a lot more relaxing than arguing about the wording on the RfA template, or watching people cause drama with people like Kurt Weber, who opposes every self-nom RfA. Otherwise, I'm still engaged on Simple English Wikipedia and Meta (with the occasional Commons edit). I've also become surprisingly active on Wikipedia Review, what with the Newyorkbrad business. I'm wondering if I really want to know who will replace him - obviously, no one can fill such a gaping hole (no, I'm not referring to size here) as adequately. Rebecca would normally be the next choice, but since she's on the Ombudsman commission, I doubt she will be able to. Next in line is Raul654. But knowing Jimbo, it could be anyone - and likely to be a highly unsuitable untrustworthy person as well.