[eynsham]

1. What’s wrong with them?

2. Why would unfairness on one specific political topic impugn the judgement of Wikipedia editors generally?

3. Who are these ‘moderators’? Do you mean editors or admins? If you mean the former, any general judgement is pretty hard to justify; if you mean the latter, admins don’t intervene often enough for their misjudgements to cause a problem for the whole website. I’ve substantially edited at least a dozen relatively important articles (which is not that much by Wikipedia standards admittedly) and have never had to interact with an admin on matters of content.

[egberts1]

In the same breath, you say "what's wrong with them", which is just as bad as saying "there is no evidence of it" while emoting obfuscating and cobbling the terms of "moderator", "editor", "contributor" together and confuse the input mechanism of Wikipedianship even further.

Wikipedian admins are the worst.

While it still isn't perfect, my fight with Wikipedia is over introduction of "Deaf" with capital "D" against editors who have no claim in this culture other than their "preservation culture of preconceived notions".

Would take 18 years before I rallied enough Deaf Wikipedian editors to muscle past those "old foggities".

Yeah, was triggered so I am putting that tidbit of observational data there.

[eynsham]

> just as bad

I fail to see why asking for evidence is the same as denial that there is any.

> while emoting obfuscating and cobbling the terms of "moderator", "editor", "contributor" together and confuse the input mechanism of Wikipedianship even further

I’m not sure how I ‘emot[ed]’ anything. There are no Wikipedia ‘moderators’, and I, in good faith, considered the two plausible candidate meanings. I do not see how else one is meant to respond to claims about strictly inextant groups. You yourself now refer to admins, which were one possible group I specified. It is more obfuscatory to use an ambiguous and strictly non-referring term than to specify plausible reinterpretations (admins, editors). It is exceedingly odd to accuse someone who points out a distinction of ‘cobbling[sic]’ what is so distinguished together.

> against editors

This is very confusing. You began by complaining that admins are ‘the worst’. Now you are complaining about editors. Is your complaint that admins unfairly decided on consensus following discussion by editors? If so, it seems that the admins are at fault there.

I’ve lost arguments on Wiki before, and I think the people who disagreed were silly. But that doesn’t indicate much about editors in general, or indeed Wiki procedures. What would be generally damning is if the cases you have in mind were to show that the admins are systematically and unfairly predisposed one way or another.

[richbell]

> admins don’t intervene often enough for their misjudgements to cause a problem for the whole website

Sure, but admins can influence the narrative of specific topics/pages that they care about.

[eynsham]

Yes, obviously in saying they can’t intervene enough to cause a problem for the whole website I envisage the possibility that they could intervene often enough to cause a problem for a part thereof.

[richbell]

Intervening in specific parts _does_ cause problems for the site as a whole: it damages Wikipedia's reputation.