Problems Without Term Limits

VOORTS is the mysterious New York Lawyer who seems to be connected with the state of New York or some powerful New York organization.
Voorts is another fan of the "One Wikipedia Account Just Isn't Enough" club. Voorts has admitted to having atleast one additional account, where
he goes by the username TechnicallyVoorts.
He seems quite interested in virtue signaling wherever and whenever the opportunity should arise.
He dislplays a sense of entitlement in that his actions on Wikipedia don't need a whole lotta explaining. So don't call him Lucy.
Not much else of substance is known about Voorts. He's kinda like an enigma really but fully entrenched in upper admin dealings.
Simply put, other admins aren't exactly known to challenge Voorts.
RSJAFFE or Rory Jaffe is the California medical doctor who practiced in Sacramento and Davis as an anesthesiologist.
The doctor likes to get his admin on when the urge arises. Dr. Rory Jaffe also operates on Wikipedia as Truth69420.
The good doctor managed to work a 69 and a 420 into his username. He seems to be a member of the
Collaborative Healthcare Patient Safety Organization.
Very little else is known about this Wikipedian admin and Rory Jaffe seems to prefer it that way. When he's not crushing editors with less status,
he's networking among Wikipedia's top echelon of admins.
Bazaarly, the medical doctor Rory Jaffe was blocked when operating as Truth69420 on December 3, 2022 by ScottishFinnishRadish, another underappreciated though tart vegetable.
Upon being blocked, Dr Rory Jaffe gave the ignorant radish-loving admin the "Hey, know who I really am?" message. Suddenly blushing red,
Radish man quickly apologized and unblocked Dr Jaffe
and they had a good laugh about it.
So much could be said about these characters who run the show at your household name encyclopedia but you'll have to wait for the documentary film to come out if you want the full picture.
Wikipedia is run by an organized group of men who seem to have a great deal of spare time on their hands and a strong urge to make consequential decisions over other people or matters.
They almost all display personal political ideology or sexuality preferences on their personal pages indicating it's self-important for them to display a chosen egotistic identity.

Now that you know a bit about the cast of characters involved in this dubious
encyclopedic story, you'll have a better understanding of the dark human dynamics that were involved.
Wikipedia is a place of corrupt internal politics. For the past 20+ years, rules for yet more rules have been written exhaustively
in what's known as the Wikipedia guidelines.
Those rules usually sound good on the surface,
but are typically interpreted arbitrarily and applied unevenly,
mostly to non-admins and generally speaking people who have not been accepted as okay to make edits.
If you aren't a well-known and accepted quantity and you try to make an edit, statistically it will almost certainly be undone.
On Wikipedia, it's called edit reverting. Every single word on Wikipedia and even every single punctuation on any page of
slight popularity is tightly controlled.
If you were to make a contribution as an editor, it would be immediately scrutinized by many stalking admins monitoring for
recent changes site-wide and
additionally everyone "supervising" the page you just edited. What do you think the chances are that atleast one of them
pounces on you and your new edit?
If even one of them decides they don't approve of it or they just don't like that you're someone editing there, they'll revert your edit.
Assuming you made a good edit, if there's nothing obvious they can think to say in their one-line summary of the revert,
they may just say something rather ambiguous like it was an unnecessary contribution or a non-improvement.
Even on a minor edit, they might weasel you about stylistic choices claiming that yours are inferior.
Anyone can say any of that about practically any edit, and then it's simply an opinion based argument.
You'll lose that argument everytime, because you lack admin power and social acceptance.
When an admin argues with you, they will rarely back down no matter how wrong they are, especially if even one other admin shows up in a display of solidarity with them.
If you put up much of a protest, expect that to happen.
Every user has their own talk page for
behind the encyclopedia scenes discussion.
After the almost immediate revert of your exciting new edit, the admin who reverted it may immediately follow up with
a public message on your talk page.
The post on your talk page is typically where the admin will school you on their reason for undoing your recent contribution.
At this point, many admins like to throw an extra
directive or two at you for good measure.
It might sound something like, in the future read this and that first so you don't mess up again.
Right then, it may suddenly occur to you that editing on this encyclopedia is not something you're going to really be welcomed at doing.

© Copyright. All rights reserved.