|
Caulde: Yet another admin retirement |
|
|
Willking1979 |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7
Joined:
From: Kentucky
Member No.: 9,736
|
Another day, another admin retirement: Caulde has retired. Here is the Spanish-language message:
"DirÃa adiós por ahora - podrÃa volver en el futuro. Con la mayor consideración, Caulde."
Here is an English translation:
"I'm going to say goodbye for now, but may return in the future. With the most consideration, Caulde."
Based on a discussion on IRC, this makes the 10th time Caulde's retired. Interestingly, this entry appears in the block log:
11:39, March 8, 2009 Caulde (talk | contribs) blocked Caulde (talk | contribs) (cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (To prevent myself from doing something I shouldn't do.)
Your thoughts???
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies
seicer |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 61
Joined:
Member No.: 4,854
|
Someone might find these useful. I'm still learning the Google Charts API, and I'd like to see these in other formats eventually. New Administrators and Resignation GraphsSome notes: 1. Resignations spiked at 8 in September 2006, 16 in December 2008 and 12 in January 2009. 2. The number of new administrators peaked in October and December 2005 at 72. The number of new administrators through 2008 declined steadily, from a high of 36 to a low of 6. For 2009, the trend points downward or steady. 3. The number of resignations over new administrators first occurred in December 2008, and occurred again in January and March 2009. This excludes data prior to 2007. The last graph has a detailed view of the last six months. So... 1. The RFA process has become more difficult, which can explain some of the new administrator drops from 2005 onward. However, this does not explain the entire situation, as the number of new administrator applications has also dropped (graph coming tomorrow). 2. The number of resignations has increased dramatically over the past 15 months, and the trend points upward. Burnout, fatigue, and discontent seem to be the predominant rationales. For a long time, we counted on a healthy count of administrators to serve Wikipedia. I haven't even begun to go through the inactive list. At a brief glance, many who became administrators from 2004 to 2006 are either inactive or have diminished quantities of edits. This either indicates burnout, fatigue, time constraints, and so on. If the trend continues, then the replenishment rate will continue to be negative, but I do not suspect that it will affect Wikipedia's performance for at least another year. This post has been edited by seicer:
|
|
|
|
EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
The way this wiki-madhouse is set up, without admins to fix endless questionable changes, it would turn into a shredded pile of graffiti-crap within a few weeks. It's already starting. QUOTE(seicer @ Tue 10th March 2009, 7:59pm) Thanks Seicer, good work! You realize that if Wikipedia were a stock-issuing, for-profit corporation, this would probably be covered up, because it would cause their stock price to drop like a stone? Jim Cramer would be on his show, screaming "Sell sell sell".
|
|
|
|
Malleus |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,682
Joined:
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 8,716
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 11th March 2009, 4:22am) The way this wiki-madhouse is set up, without admins to fix endless questionable changes, it would turn into a shredded pile of graffiti-crap within a few weeks. It's already starting.
It isn't admins who fix most of the crap, or even very much of the crap; it's the regular editors who do that. As I said, admins are part of the problem, not part of the solution. The fewer the better. QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 11th March 2009, 4:28am) QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 10th March 2009, 9:04pm) Why this emphasis on administrators? At best they're simply there to hold back the tide of vanadlism, and there are better and more efficient ways of doing that; at worst ... well add your own expletives. So they can guard whatever wikipeda currently contains, but that will get easier as the content providers and subject experts also desert the project. So no problem at all really, they can be just like the knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail, protecting a wooden cup. Except in their case the wooden cup really is just a wooden cup. Administrators are part of the problem, not part of the solution. The fewer of them the better.
I think you're thinking of the Indiana Jones holy grail. The one with the majick peroxide in it. Castle Anthrax had only a grail light in Python. Which they kept leaving on. Requiring punishment for the naughty! (IMG: http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Shrlocc/spank.gif) I was, yes, you're quite right. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)
|
|
|
|
Alex |
|
Back from the dead
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,017
Joined:
Member No.: 867
|
QUOTE(Malleus @ Wed 11th March 2009, 8:37pm) QUOTE(Alex @ Wed 11th March 2009, 7:57pm) QUOTE(Malleus @ Wed 11th March 2009, 4:32am) It isn't admins who fix most of the crap, or even very much of the crap; it's the regular editors who do that. As I said, admins are part of the problem, not part of the solution. The fewer the better.
Where is your evidence for this? For which part of this? Uh, scrub that, I see it's you Majorly. Not interested in your games either here or elsewhere. And you're Malleus Fatuorum? Nice to meet you. Still, I really would like to know who and how someone came up with the idea admins actually cause damage to the encyclopedia. Sure, they may damage certain people's egos, but aside from maybe a handful of rogue admins, all desysopped, all care much about the encyclopedia and do their best to maintain its upkeep. There are of course normal editors that damage the encyclopedia on a daily basis - through vandalism, original research, NPOV statements, libel, copyvios etc. An admin caught doing that would most likely be desysopped (I say most likely because someone is bound to find an example of one that wasn't). They may not all write all the time, but they help out in tons of other ways. It's an insult to those administrators who dedicate hundreds thousands of hours to Wikipedia, writing tons of excellent articles, and improving lots more - as well as lots of maintenance admin work. I'm surprised you'd make a sweeping statement "admins are part of the problem" (well actually I'm not but whatever). You mean people like Iridescent, Jennavecia, Casliber, Rlevse, Jbmurray, Nev1, Ddstretch etc are all part of the problem? It's funny, there's always talk about this sort of thing, but no real evidence. No examples, no nothing. Just somebody's say-so. It was probably a little too much to ask you where you get this idea from, still it would be interesting to know all the same.
|
|
|
|
gomi |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 3,022
Joined:
Member No.: 565
|
QUOTE(Alex @ Wed 11th March 2009, 3:58pm) Still, I really would like to know who and how someone came up with the idea admins actually cause damage to the encyclopedia. ... normal editors that damage the encyclopedia on a daily basis - through ... original research, NPOV statements, ... An admin caught doing that would most likely be desysopped ... Jayjg (T-C-L-K-R-D)
fits your description of an admin -- of the most powerful kind -- who does immense damage to WP by leading a merry band who insert as much POV and bias of their particular partisan variety into the "encyclopedia". As documented here on WR and on WP, Jayjg, IronDuke, NoCal100, Canadian Monkey, JoshuaZ and others use Jay's admin tools and the worst kind of system-gaming imaginable to drive WP in a direction far, far from reliable real-world academic or journalistic sources. If you want another, SlimVirgin continues (albeit at a lower level) to drive her POV on articles relating to "Animal Rights" and similar. The whole Prem Rawat thing has also been covered here and elsewhere. That also involves a powerful admin. I wouldn't go so far as to say that all admins are evil, venal, POV-pushers, just many of them. It seems to be one of the rewards of working within such an insane system. You're (of course) free to push your mindless pro-Wikipedia position here, but it isn't supported by even a cursory look at the facts.
|
|
|
|
Alex |
|
Back from the dead
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,017
Joined:
Member No.: 867
|
QUOTE(gomi @ Wed 11th March 2009, 11:30pm) QUOTE(Alex @ Wed 11th March 2009, 3:58pm) Still, I really would like to know who and how someone came up with the idea admins actually cause damage to the encyclopedia. ... normal editors that damage the encyclopedia on a daily basis - through ... original research, NPOV statements, ... An admin caught doing that would most likely be desysopped ... Jayjg (T-C-L-K-R-D)
fits your description of an admin -- of the most powerful kind -- who does immense damage to WP by leading a merry band who insert as much POV and bias of their particular partisan variety into the "encyclopedia". As documented here on WR and on WP, Jayjg, IronDuke, NoCal100, Canadian Monkey, JoshuaZ and others use Jay's admin tools and the worst kind of system-gaming imaginable to drive WP in a direction far, far from reliable real-world academic or journalistic sources. If you want another, SlimVirgin continues (albeit at a lower level) to drive her POV on articles relating to "Animal Rights" and similar. The whole Prem Rawat thing has also been covered here and elsewhere. That also involves a powerful admin. I wouldn't go so far as to say that all admins are evil, venal, POV-pushers, just many of them. It seems to be one of the rewards of working within such an insane system. You're (of course) free to push your mindless pro-Wikipedia position here, but it isn't supported by even a cursory look at the facts. Did I say at any time, anywhere at all, that all admins on Wikipedia were absolute stars? Did I ever give the impression I agree with every single one of them, and think they all do a brilliant job? No, I did not. I am saying the suggestion that every single one is a problem is big words, but no substance. I never denied there are problematic admins, ever, at any point. So do not imply I did. Cheers.
|
|
|
|
gomi |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 3,022
Joined:
Member No.: 565
|
QUOTE(Alex @ Wed 11th March 2009, 4:36pm) Did I say at any time, anywhere at all, that all admins on Wikipedia were absolute stars? ... No, I did not. And I didn't say every single one is evil. Just most. You did say: QUOTE(Alex @ Wed 11th March 2009, 3:58pm) I would like to know how someone came up with the idea admins actually cause damage to the encyclopedia ... aside from maybe a handful of rogue admins, all desysopped, all care much about the encyclopedia ... there's always talk about this sort of thing, but no real evidence. No examples, no nothing. So it's like this: I read exactly what you wrote: "aside from ... rogue admins, all desysopped ... all care ... about the encyclopedia". That is what you wrote, and also the distinct impression you left with any reader with two brain cells to rub together. But when I present "examples, evidence", you backpedal. Are you stupid or just too Wiki-brainwashed to know what you are typing?
|
|
|
|
Posts in this topic
Willking1979 Caulde: Yet another admin retirement Kato I applaud anyone who sees the light and quits wast... CharlotteWebb
I applaud anyone who sees the light and quits was... Cla68
[quote name='Kato' post='160164' date='Sun 8th Ma... Kato
Eight percent of Essjay's edits were to actua... maggot3 Based on a discussion on IRC, this makes the 10th ... Wikileaker Onnaghar/Rudget/Caulde/God knows what else is only... Bottled_Spider Based on a discussion on IRC, this makes the 10th ... gadfly
Aitias, another morally bankrupt child, is alread... Guido den Broeder Met him once, inconsistent behaviour, won't re... Alex Caulde has contributed to a handful of featured/go... A Horse With No Name
Another day, another admin retirement: Caulde has... Guido den Broeder Ah. He fell into the Malleus wheelwar pit and got ... A Horse With No Name
Ah. He fell into the Malleus wheelwar pit and got... Malleus
[quote name='Guido den Broeder' post='160208' dat... A Horse With No Name
[quote name='Guido den Broeder' post='160208' da... Malleus
Well, Malley, it looks like you bet on the wrong ... Milton Roe
Based on a discussion on IRC, this makes the 10th... dtobias I think there's actually a rule against self-b... JoseClutch
I think there's actually a rule against self-... LaraLove
Ah. He fell into the Malleus wheelwar pit and got... Willking1979 Looks like Caulde reads WR. From the protection lo... Malleus So it's not all bad news then . Moulton
[YouTube]rY0WxgSXdEE
[b]Queen — Another O... Willking1979 East718 just removed Caulde's uncivil comment ... LaraLove Yo, Malleus! Good to see ya here. :) Malleus
Yo, Malleus! Good to see ya here. :)
How did... Bottled_Spider I must check up on the banning rules here before I... Malleus
I must check up on the banning rules here before ... Cedric
Seemed reasonable to me. Both talk in word salad ... AlioTheFool
[quote name='Malleus' post='160393' date='Mon 9t... LaraLove
Yo, Malleus! Good to see ya here. :)
How di... EricBarbour
Malleus, I like your talk page.
It's snappy... Malleus
Malleus, I like your talk page.
It's snapp... LaraLove
Malleus, I like your talk page.
It's snap... Lar
Malleus, I like your talk page.
It's snap... Malleus
Do you wish every admin to hate you? For if you d... Eva Destruction
I have grown to despise the system of petty rules... Malleus
(Does this mean I have to give up being your prot... Malleus Why this emphasis on administrators? At best they... Milton Roe
Why this emphasis on administrators? At best they... Malleus
... aside from maybe a handful of rogue admins, a... Alex
... aside from maybe a handful of rogue admins, ... Malleus
[quote name='Malleus' post='160834' date='Wed 11t... Alex
[quote name='Alex' post='160838' date='Wed 11th M... One
And you're Malleus Fatuorum? Nice to meet you... Milton Roe
And you're Malleus Fatuorum? Nice to meet yo... Bottled_Spider [quote name='One' post='160855' date='Wed 11th Mar... wikiwhistle
[quote name='One' post='160855' date='Wed 11th Ma... Alex
[quote name='Bottled_Spider' post='160860' date='... Wikileaker
And you're Malleus Fatuorum? Nice to meet yo... EricBarbour Uh, scrub that, I see it's you Majorly. Not in... gadfly
Is this the "collegial atmosphere" I... seicer Is there a page that lists inactive administrators... Sarcasticidealist
Is there a page that lists inactive administrator... seicer The list for 2008 is ... incredibly high compared ... Sarcasticidealist
The list for 2008 is ... incredibly high compared... seicer Oh, thanks. For some reason, I had assumed that it... Wikileaker Malleus, I love you and have always loved you. Malleus
Malleus, I love you and have always loved you.
H... seicer Still digging through the data, but here is an upd... Gold heart
Still digging through the data, but here is an up... Guido den Broeder
Still digging through the data, but here is an up... dogbiscuit
[quote name='seicer' post='160872' date='Thu 12th... seicer I could do that later today, but I was afraid that... dogbiscuit
I could do that later today, but I was afraid tha... Eva Destruction Looking at this list it sems to suggest that since... seicer hmmm... won't let me link to images here, but ... Eva Destruction
hmmm... won't let me link to images here, but... seicer Just re-ran March numbers. Based on data from 1 Ma... LaraLove The resignations aren't right either. Your gra... seicer For all data, I used only numbers from the beginni... LaraLove
For all data, I used only numbers from the beginn... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden By the way, for any fans of Caulde:
Looks like ... Malleus Let joy be unconfined! Guido den Broeder Well that didn't last long. Apathetic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...d_adm... Alex
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...d_ad... Malleus
[quote name='Apathetic' post='163489' date='Wed 2...
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |