The more I think about things on Wikipedia, the more I'm inclined to use the old Branch Rickey line when after a poor year for his team, one of his top players demanded a raise....

"We finished last with you.. we can finish last without you just as well".

Why?

Because quite frankly, I'm tired of pushing against the status quo in so many things.

Ireland related editwars? Yeah. THAT'S gonna go away real soon.

"Fringe Science"? Dear god, I hope people won't be surprised that my first, second, and third thoughts when reading all the AE/AN/ANI reports since the ArbCom case closed ten days ago was "God, I wish I could ban them all". Not Argumentum Ad Nauseum, more like Argumentum Ad Insanium. (I know, bad Latin, I don't care)

Flagged Revisions? Again, the status quo will never change. there's too much inertia to ever get it into motion without something extra-ordinary (IE, Jimbo decides to take the PR hit and God-Kings something through)

Followers of (insert political party here) thinks Wikipedia is far too biased in favor of (insert political party here). (and usually, the people on that side think it's just as biased the other way).

Even when ArbCom does things right, they screw things up. ScienceApologist's topic ban is being flouted blatantly, and instead of letting a clear boundary be set, they demand it be done as an "ArbCom clarification", which means at least some folks on ArbCom sit and discuss things endlessly..) This thing closed ten days ago. A "clarification" on the wording shouldn't take another 4+ days.. they have everything at hand! But instead, the fire rages out of control. Same as it ever was.

I was talking with a person recently whose name gets bandied around here quite frequently (although not as frequently as it used to). We got to talking about ArbCom Enforcement and the situation on Wikipedia. And they said as a conservative estimate, there would need to be at least THREE times as many administrators to keep things under control. Not three times as many admins at AE (although that would help), three times as many administrators, period! Not to mention 80% of the admin class aren't doing much of anything to manage conflicts on Wikipedia

Anyway, I'm wondering if it's time to let someone else have fun with the mop, and drift away. Let all the articles on my watchlist go, and let the vandals at em.

I recommend you go out in a blaze of glory. ;)

That will happen eventually anyway.

Why not make the break now?

See John A:

Why not? Because there has been times where I've been able to help WP out, and I agree with WP's aims.. IN PRINCIPLE. The problem is that it's become so big and unwieldy, it's the theoretical 900 lb gorilla in the room. You can't move it, you can't ignore it, and you can't get rid of it.

900 lbs? That Gorilla has put on 100 lbs in the last year or so:

Phil Sandifer. October 2007.

"We also have to watch out, though - for fuckheads like ED and even Bagley we're, honestly, well-equipped to handle them as-is because they're so self-obviously stupid. But we have to remember, we are the 800 lb gorilla in most conflicts with people.

We are huge. We are a huge fucking website staffed by people who do not know how to run the ninth biggest website on Teh Intarwebs.

We are bigger than Blogger, bigger than eBay, and bigger than Amazon. We have no clue how to deal with that. And I count myself in that we.

I have no fucking clue why I am a powerful and trusted administrator on the ninth biggest website in the world."

Stop thinking about it, dude. Just do it. I thought about it for months. Being out of the drama and the repetitiveness and endless discussion leading to no consensus. The time wasted, the frustration and anger. It's gone, Foz. Peace out of that place and be happy.

I have already largely done that, but because I like to write, I still end up with articles on my watchlist, and still have to watch them IP-vandalized. And while this goes on I have to watch as random admins indef sprotect stuff they are interested in but tired of watching, while they might deign to grant me a 24 hour sprotection for my articles of interest, on grounds that it's a pillar that ANYBODY CAN EDIT. Which they apparently take to mean that "anybody can edit as an IP-user with no person-traceable email address."

I've been wondering if there's anything I can do about this. Complaint does no good, because I only run into the "anyone can edit" robots, who are pretty much the same kind of people as the "RS, V, and NOTABILITY fix all BLP problems" people. They do not respond to evidence and logic. And alas, sarcasm and namecalling are forbidden on WP (unless you're JzG).

So what to do? Well, there exists a Twilight Zone between the bright land of SunshineUpTheAss and the darker land of General Strike. It's called "Work Slowdown." It's what you can do to show your importance in the work-place, without getting yourself specifically fired.

So here's my idea for IP vandalism: We spread the meme that it should not be reverted by any human on Wednesdays. I was going to suggest weekends, but too much of this occurs doing schoolhours, so Weekends would not be as good. Wednesdays it is. And whereever you are in the world, it's midnight to midnight on your particular Wednesday. That spreads it out a bit, but who cares? Keep It Simple.

On Wednesays, we turn all IP-vandal-edits over to Twinkle-users trying to lick their way up the great brown snowcone, True-Wiki-believers, and ClueBot. And good riddance! They'll enjoy it, and they deserve it. I'm gunna watch and *I'll* certainly enjoy it.

Now, what happens if I'm about to fix a spelling error in my favorite article and find that somebody has just added the helpful fact that COACH J. WESLEY SMITH IS A FLAMING FAGGOT? Answer: I ignore this, add my correction, and save. Somebody else may have to remove the offending bit manually, if they notice it. It keeps editors off the streets and out of the pool halls, and they feel useful.

So spread the word. Wednesday is the official day when WP editors don't fix any problem that would long ago have been fixed if the community didn't have so much free slave labor as to not worry their heads about labor-saving fixes to policy. Let's let the people who still believe in the policy, do the work themselves on that day-of-rest.

We can later apply this to BLP and a lot of other ordinary fixes that ordinary editors now perform, but shouldn't have to on a rational website.

Milton

And... it's done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sir...ministrator_bit.

As is mine

I was just going to write how much I agreed with what SirFozzie said.

Kevin

Change of plan, guys!

Rather than quit, make a statement....

Congratulations to you both.

I think any statement an individual could make is destined to be lost in the noise. Even a spectacular burnout is soon forgotten.

Kevin

I think a good statement to serve as a record as to why you resigned and/or retired is a positive. The more admins that drop for the same reasons, the more likely some change will eventually be pushed through. Sending a message is important, in my opinion.

Here's a suggestion for folks who are beginning to outgrow their Wiki-Pampers™.

If you have articles you care about, just GFDL them over to the main space at Wikipedia Review.

If you have articles you created and wrote all the significant parts of, up to some version, say, then put your own work in the directory space at Wikipedia Review, and develop the article further as you see fit.

If you know folks you can collaborate with, then you can work out collaborative versions in the main space by pooling your efforts, all the while keeping your own perspectives in directory space.

It doesn't really take all that long to get decent rankings on most search engines, even on Google, despite all its warping.

You'd be surprised how productive you can be in an environment with adult management.

Jon Awbrey

I have made a statement of sorts, so that others will know my reasons. I can't see it having any impact whatsoever though, unless the resignations ramp up significantly.

Kevin

Well, I haven't been editing much myself, partly due to my ArbCom difficulties, but mainly due to real life things. I haven't decided whether I'll eventually return to writing piles of new content everyday, or whether I'll end up as only an occasional editor, making updates here and there when necessary. Admittedly, I'm in kind of an unusual situation where the management has said they'd rather that I not come to work, and while they aren't going to actually fire me, they are prepared to make my life difficult if I do show up. Probably I wouldn't be sitting on the fence about it if not for that absurdity.

Congratulations, David I'm happy for you. You've had a hellish week in RL (but let's not talk about that here), and you really don't need the work, the heartache and the frustration that goes with all this.

Celebrate time!


Well done to you too, Kevin! At least take a break from the mayhem ....

Isaac Asimov put up with that for a couple of decades. Boston U Med School wanted to fire him because he hated doing research and didn't bring in grant money. It didn't matter that he was their best lecturer. But they couldn't fire him because he had tenure. So they just quit paying him and said he didn't have to teach or come in to work at all. So he didn't-- but he kept the title of associate prof, and his mailbox.

Twenty years later his writing had made his so famous and well-known that B.U. was scrambling all over themselves to associate with him and claim him, and they promoted him to full professor . None of it would have been possible if they hadn't semi-fired him, giving him time to write full-time.

Just follow your bliss. It usually works out. And even if when it doesn't, you generally are happier.

The analogy is made funnier when one considers that I don't get paid. It's like having to pick the lock to the building every day so I can get in and do volunteer work.

I notice you used "they" instead of "he" or "she" to refer that person. I think "they" are right that Wikipedia needs three times more admins to stay on top of project maintenance. Of course, though, the admins also need a more structured organization to help support their decision making and institutionalize standard responses to similar events. Hopefully, the person you were conversing with has never helped torpedo anyone's RfA for political reasons, because that would have removed some admins that might have helped shoulder the load for the rest of you all.

Anyway, simply asking for a suspension of the privileges is a graceful way to go, as opposed to blocking all of the problem editors from the Troubles and Fringe Science, then deleting their userpages and salting them with profane edit summaries, or redirecting all their userpages and the articles in question to Jimbo's userpage and then fully protecting them, or something like that.

By the way, your efforts with the Mantanmoreland fiasco did produce some results. Your status as an admin probably gave you some authority to push that through that you might otherwise not have had.

they don't deserve for you to share your thoughts with them via edits. not until the wikipedia disease can be cured.

but on the other hand...

So, in the matter of three days, Barneca, Alison, SirFozzie and Kevin all retired. I feel like the cool kids just left the food court and I still have a two-thirds full Orange Julius and a snot-nosed kid brother to watch over.

Well.....either you're a masochist with a taste for kid-brother mucus ,
or you think the project can be "saved".

Seriously, it's so big and screwed up, the only way to "save" it is to let it collapse,
and pick up the pieces later. (Hopefully, after Jimbo, Gerard and their little
buddies are out of the picture.)

Interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dds...s_administrator

Quite. The Ayn Rand was what did for me also (I have given up for Lent but perhaps we can make it permanent).

I'm not going to miss this one... it took me 4 years to grow a mullet, and by that time the cool kids had shaved heads. I too have resigned my admin bit - uniquely without actually acquiring it in the first place - that's how much I don't want it any more ;-)

I'm kinda surprised at all this though, to be honest - haven't the fundamental criticisms been present for ages now? Is this a cost / benefit type decision for some, a la John A - and if so, what was the catalyst for the realisation ('cos it doesn't seem much changed?)

Is this an 'insiders only' crisis, of the existential angst variety, (prolly, I reckon) or does this represent an actual shift in some dynamic or other....? interesting stuff......

The Customary Nine Days Have Expired …

Ja Ja

Plus Ddstretch's sign-off -- I assume he was watching "Pride of the Yankees" before writing that sign-off.

Alison's departure is a major shame, because she brought class and dignity to the proceedings. But as for the departure of those other admins -- big f**king deal. I think their increasingly ridiculous farewells to adminship cruelly displays how they have completely lost track of reality in regard to where a volunteer hobby site like Wikipedia should fit into their lives. My message to SirFozzie, Barneca, Kevin and Ddstretch: come on, you slobs, grow up and get a life.

Shut the fuck up, Horse. For those of us spending time here because we want to see change come to Wikipedia... some responsible improvement, this is great. Admins dropping out for reasons like DDstretch pointed out in his fourth paragraph is exactly what is needed to eventually bring a wake-up call to the deaf and dumb masses of Wikipedia.

It's already begun.

Of course it is great -- insecure and (let's not kid ourselves) incompetent admins do Wikipedia no great service, and the bye-bye texts that are piling up show these people (1) are not qualified to hold a position of responsibility, (2) have no clue how to deal with a variety of personalities in benign circumstances, and (3) are a bunch of drama queens. Each one of these ridiculous farewells statements is funnier than the next -- and I think Ddstretch deserves a barnstar for crafting one of the very worst resignations letter in the history of English-language correspondence.

These slobs have completely forgotten that adminship is No Big Deal. And their departure, quite frankly, is no big deal -- their storming off won't disrupt operations, nor will it speed change. Wikipedia, not unlike any bloated bureaucracy, will wobble along as if nothing happened. Remember what Charles DeGaulle said: the graveyards of the world are filled with indispensable men.

But that's just men …

Ja Ja

The more admins that drop, the more shit that will pile up. The more admins that put messages stating these same reasons for their departure, the greater the chance that it can be used as an example of why change needs to come. The more admins that drop for the same reasons, the more likely the press will pick it up.

And the "adminship is no big deal" is a crock of shit, and anyone who believes it is a moron. For what Wikipedia is and how it operates, adminship is a damn big deal. It's an umbrella on a perpetually rainy day; and if you try to take that umbrella away, they just beat you with it.

It may be no big deal when considering it's a volunteer job on a website, but as far as the website is concerned, it needs those volunteers. As the numbers continue to dwindle, with the more veteran admins dropping out, it's putting more pressure on the already spread thin core of admins, more and more of whom are children. People are dropping out now in disgust and frustration. Some of them after feeling overwhelmed. It doesn't get better from there without change. It only gets worse. With fewer principled people fighting the good fight, the dipshits win. The frustration grows, and with more shit to deal with, it's more overwhelming.

This is all completely obvious.

Ironically, given the drama of an RfA, it's somewhat easier to become an admin these days if you've kept strictly out of politics and have no new and subversive ideas for making the site better. Thus, more and more it selects for robots. This is not necessarily good.


That is the way of the world. As the officers are killed off, eventually you get to the point that the only people clueless enough to go into the meatgrinder, are teenagers. The origin of the word "infantry" is exactly what you might think from first looking at it: it doesn't mean children in diapers as in English, but it does refer to children with weapons.

You actually managed to read it all without going into a coma? Respect!

Where do we start?

1. Lara, you are a hot chili mama, so I cannot possibly get angry with you.

2. I am sorry to see qualified admins leave. Alison’s departure was a major loss – so was yours, for that matter. These other guys – SirFozzie, Kevin, Barneca, Ddstretch – were a complete waste of space who brought nothing of value to Wikipedia. Their departure is reason for champagne, not bitter tea.

3. The press is NOT going to pick up any stories about insecure, inept and inane ex-admins who cannot cut the mustard on a volunteer web site.

4. What the web site needs who are people organized and detail oriented and who have training in dealing with editorial content, publishing protocol and human resources. Some fat slob who answers phones in a storage company is not the right person for that assignment. And some hyperactive teenager who obsesses over video games isn’t right, either. Face it, 99% of the admins lack the professional training and emotional stability to handle administrative work. Maybe Jimbo needs to do what IMDb does – hire professional editors/managers to run the site and to allow registered users to simply submit information and discuss content in forums. Really, look who is leading at RfA now -- Chris Cunningham, some Scottish asshole who admits to editing while drunk. Jimbo has money -- let him hire people (even part-time) who can do the job correctly.

5. Adminship is no big deal because Wikipedia is no big deal. It is a web site full of badly written articles – it is not a medical center. I have yet to meet anyone who doesn’t break out into laughter when I say the word “Wikipedia.” My experience is not unique, either.

Still Clueless After All These Years (WP:SCAATY) —

A well designed con game — and Wikipedia is a very well designed con game — is designed to move any marks who begin to cache on off the board.

Ja Ja

Although there has always been a high degree of turnover among all levels of Wikipedia participants, including the various types of functionaries, I can assure you that the recent raft of resignations, retirements, or semi-inactivities has been noted and is the subject of concern. Real life issues come first, of course, and so does the principle that one only gives volunteer time where one is having some fun and feels one is doing some good, but please don't feel that your departure hasn't been noticed and that your previous work hasn't been appreciated. That goes for several of you.

An Unseen Hand gave Brad the Jimbo sign:
No More Barnstar — Gold Watch Next Time.

Take It Away, Mousetro !!!

Ja Ja

Why not start a wikiproject about this? That is, make a list where users will pledge to walk out on some date if tangible steps toward improvement haven't been taken? I would make such a pledge.

What's a reasonable and appropriate date? I suggest the Seigenthaler anniversary: May 26. The four year anniversary of that former public servant being libeled by an IP address. If nothing happens before then, I quit.

Or better still:

Oh, that's original …

Original !?!

Original !!!



Ja Ja

[Moderator's note: some off-topic arguing between Horse and Malleus was moved to the Tar Pit, and Moulton's latest offering of doggerel was also moved to the repository for such things. -- gomi]

Are these people going to agree on what qualifies as an "improvement"? I don't think you and I would exactly agree on what sort of "tangible steps toward improvement" need to be taken.

Yeah. Actually, I'm thinking that May 26 might be a better date for civil disobedience anyway. FR seems to be dead, so I might as well try to raise the BLP semi-protection project.

Do it. I foresee you leaving, though. So don't make a pledge you won't keep.

You are on the ArbCom; please don't subject us to talk to "civil disobedience". Instead of planning grand gestures predicated on the actions of others, you could use your role as one of the most powerful people on the project to actually bring about some change. As far as I can tell, you have done absolutely nothing in that regard since taking your seat.

Jimbo himself can't bring about change. Policy creation is basically broken, and I'm even more convinced that the only way to get anything is to go do it. That's what I'm proposing.

I would support such a plan, particularly if a member of the Arbcom featured prominently.

You have a bully pulpit. Use it. Do, yes, but create policy by doing. If, for example, enough people close AfDs and sustain DRVs as default to delete, then et voila, default to delete for no consensus BLPs is policy.

Good Grief!!!

The word infantry comes from the fact that, on at least one occasion, part of the dowry of a Spanish princess was made up of regiments of foot soldiers. They were nicknamed infantry because the princess was an Infanta of Spain!

To the moderators/staff: Please can I have a nitpicker's smiley!