Changes

There is never any thought of flood control for a “constructive editor”, no matter how clearly obsessive they become.  Not unless or until that editor has become unmutual, or simply too great an embarrassment, because of violations of policy (be they written or unwritten), in which case they are blocked or banned.  Generally, one can either edit in an unlimited fashion (until they drop), or not all.  Of course, has to be noted here that those editors who are better known, who have been deemed “constructive” and “productive” in the past, and who are admins or a friend of an admin (i.e., “power users”), are likely to be judged far more leniently as compared to less well known and less obsessive editors who have no friends in the Wikipedia power structure.  To those “power users” with personality disorders or addictive personalities, this merely serves as an invitation to delve more deeply into pathological behavior;  an invitation rarely, if ever, declined.

There is never any thought of flood control for a “constructive editor”, no matter how clearly obsessive they become.  Not unless or until that editor has become unmutual, or simply too great an embarrassment, because of violations of policy (be they written or unwritten), in which case they are blocked or banned.  Generally, one can either edit in an unlimited fashion (until they drop), or not all.  Of course, has to be noted here that those editors who are better known, who have been deemed “constructive” and “productive” in the past, and who are admins or a friend of an admin (i.e., “power users”), are likely to be judged far more leniently as compared to less well known and less obsessive editors who have no friends in the Wikipedia power structure.  To those “power users” with personality disorders or addictive personalities, this merely serves as an invitation to delve more deeply into pathological behavior;  an invitation rarely, if ever, declined.

The exploitation of the addiction or mental illness of certain users has bad effects other than the deepening psychological harm to the afflicted user.  It also has the affect of harming the reputation of Wikipedia, by giving the increasingly common impression that “the lunatics have taken over the asylum”.  This in turn has prompted a number of actually constructive users to leave Wikipedia in disgust as they see the favoritism extended toward certain users who are clearly disturbed, and who also are clearly pushing an agenda, or have little idea what they are talking about.  And when the afflicted user also happens to be an admin, the potential for abusive use of admin powers is very often realized.  In essence, such admins are both victims and victimizers.

The exploitation of the addiction or mental illness of certain users has bad effects other than the deepening psychological harm to the afflicted user.  It also has the effect of harming the reputation of Wikipedia, by giving the increasingly common impression that “the lunatics have taken over the asylum”.  This in turn has prompted a number of actually constructive users to leave Wikipedia in disgust as they see the favoritism extended toward certain users who are clearly disturbed, and who also are clearly pushing an agenda, or have little idea what they are talking about.  And when the afflicted user also happens to be an admin, the potential for abusive use of admin powers is very often realized.  In essence, such admins are both victims and victimizers.

However, merely having an internet addiction or mental illness alone does not give a user an “inside track” to becoming a “power user”.  If one is afflicted, but also expresses politically incorrect opinions or fails to show a proper eagerness to play the game, that user can quickly find themself isolated, if not blocked or banned.  Also, I would ''never'' suggest as a reform that Wikipedia start to offer some sort counseling program to troubled users.  The very thought of a psychological counseling program at Wikipedia is only very slightly less horrifying than [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/09/wikipedia_letters wiki-surgery].

However, merely having an internet addiction or mental illness alone does not give a user an “inside track” to becoming a “power user”.  If one is afflicted, but also expresses politically incorrect opinions or fails to show a proper eagerness to play the game, that user can quickly find themself isolated, if not blocked or banned.  Also, I would ''never'' suggest as a reform that Wikipedia start to offer some sort counseling program to troubled users.  The very thought of a psychological counseling program at Wikipedia is only very slightly less horrifying than [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/09/wikipedia_letters wiki-surgery].