Caulde: Yet another admin retirement Options

[Willking1979]

Another day, another admin retirement: Caulde has retired. Here is the Spanish-language message:

"Diría adiós por ahora - podría 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???

[Kato]

I applaud anyone who sees the light and quits wasting their time at that place, but this Caulde (T-C-L-K-R-D) guy? What had he written? A look at his last 500 edits shows no evidence that this guy was creating content for readers.

These busy-bodies come and go and are part of the problem.

[maggot3]

Based on a discussion on IRC, this makes the 10th time Caulde's retired.

Says it all, really. Stop giving them attention.

[Wikileaker]

Onnaghar/Rudget/Caulde/God knows what else is only twelve or thirteen, IIRC. (Edit: Aitias, another morally bankrupt child, is already on the talkpage pining for him. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif))

This post has been edited by Wikileaker:

[Guido den Broeder]

Met him once, inconsistent behaviour, won't really miss him.

[CharlotteWebb]

I applaud anyone who sees the light and quits wasting their time at that place, but this Caulde (T-C-L-K-R-D) guy? What had he written? A look at his last 500 edits shows no evidence that this guy was creating content for readers.

(numbers) Not quite as bad as Essjay, to be fair.

[Alex]

Caulde has contributed to a handful of featured/good articles, but he's retired before. This is nothing new.

[A Horse With No Name]

Another day, another admin retirement: Caulde has retired. Here is the Spanish-language message:

"Diría adiós por ahora - podría 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???

No great loss.

[Guido den Broeder]

Ah. He fell into the Malleus wheelwar pit and got tarred and feathered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum

This post has been edited by Guido den Broeder:

[Bottled_Spider]

Based on a discussion on IRC, this makes the 10th time Caulde's retired.

Maybe the little shit is getting in some practice for the real (world) thing. When he's 64, or whenever it is, he'll retire, then start working again, and so on. Stretch it out till he's a hundred.

Aitias, another morally bankrupt child, is already on the talkpage pining for him. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

"...don't leave, Caulde. You're such an outstanding admin and great user. Please stay. Please. I'd miss you incredibly badly". Brings a tear to the eye.

[A Horse With No Name]

Ah. He fell into the Malleus wheelwar pit and got tarred and feathered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum

In view of his latest stupidity, I think his name should be Malleus Fatuous.

DDStretch, the admin who unblocked Malleus, is threatening to give back his mop. No great loss there, either.

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[Milton Roe]

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???

Typical addictive recovery behavior. Like pouring all your liquor down the sink so you won't be tempted into drinking. Makes it JUST a little harder to backslide. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[gadfly]

Aitias, another morally bankrupt child, is already on the talkpage pining for him. :lol:

"...don't leave, Caulde. You're such an outstanding admin and great user. Please stay. Please. I'd miss you incredibly badly". Brings a tear to the eye.

More to the point, if Aitias thinks that of him, it is almost a guarantee that he was/will return to be a useless admin.

[Cla68]

I applaud anyone who sees the light and quits wasting their time at that place, but this Caulde (T-C-L-K-R-D) guy? What had he written? A look at his last 500 edits shows no evidence that this guy was creating content for readers.

(numbers) Not quite as bad as Essjay, to be fair.

Eight percent of Essjay's edits were to actual articles? Eight? For crying out loud, and this guy was on Jimbo's fast track? You've got to be kidding me.

Caulde's article edits were at 20%. Much better.

[dtobias]

I think there's actually a rule against self-blocking.

[Kato]

Eight percent of Essjay's edits were to actual articles? Eight? For crying out loud, and this guy was on Jimbo's fast track? You've got to be kidding me.

Caulde's article edits were at 20%. Much better.

Anyone under something like 50% actual content (be it articles or templates or whatever) is primarily wasting time and playing games, not contributing to "the sum of human knowledge".

Even perennial talk-page gadfly Dtobias hits almost 60%. Whereas JzG scrapes 28%.

[LaraLove]

Ah. He fell into the Malleus wheelwar pit and got tarred and feathered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum

Nothing like a bunch of child admins acting like stupid children to perpetuate the view that children suck as admins. Brilliant idea, prodding the guy that hates such admins while he's blocked. Just awesome.

[Malleus]

Ah. He fell into the Malleus wheelwar pit and got tarred and feathered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum

In view of his latest stupidity, I think his name should be Malleus Fatuous.

That's a shame. I've always thought so highly of you. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Willking1979]

Looks like Caulde reads WR. From the protection log:

11:56, March 9, 2009 Caulde (talk | contribs) protected User talk:Caulde [create=sysop] (indefinite) ‎ (Don't intend to return, I've lost interest in this shithole and the pricks (cue Malleus) on it; and, WR, this isn't the 10th time I've retired.) (hist)

[Malleus]

So it's not all bad news then .

[Moulton]

Queen — Another One Bites the Dust

[JoseClutch]

I think there's actually a rule against self-blocking.

Yeah, there is a rule against a lot of things . . .

[A Horse With No Name]

Ah. He fell into the Malleus wheelwar pit and got tarred and feathered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum

In view of his latest stupidity, I think his name should be Malleus Fatuous.

That's a shame. I've always thought so highly of you. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Well, Malley, it looks like you bet on the wrong horse! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Malleus]

Well, Malley, it looks like you bet on the wrong horse! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Perhaps, or perhaps I was just taking the piss horsey. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[Willking1979]

East718 just removed Caulde's uncivil comment from the protection log:

13:56, March 9, 2009 East718 (talk | contribs) protected User talk:Caulde [create=sysop] (indefinite) ‎ (user invoked m:RTV) (hist)

13:56, March 9, 2009 East718 (talk | contribs) unprotected User talk:Caulde ‎ (chg unprofessional log comment that's shown to all visitors of this page) (hist)

[LaraLove]

Yo, Malleus! Good to see ya here. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Malleus]

Yo, Malleus! Good to see ya here. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

How did you know it was me? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I must check up on the banning rules here before I post again, just to be on the safe side.

[Bottled_Spider]

I must check up on the banning rules here before I post again, just to be on the safe side.

This is well funny. Wikipedia can be so entertaining. Thank you very much.

[Malleus]

I must check up on the banning rules here before I post again, just to be on the safe side.

This is well funny. Wikipedia can be so entertaining. Thank you very much.

Seemed reasonable to me. Both talk in word salad and have a pretentious tendency to use foreign languages inappropriately.

[Cedric]

Seemed reasonable to me. Both talk in word salad and have a pretentious tendency to use foreign languages inappropriately.

Ah, yes. Those finely honed linguistic skills, no doubt. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[LaraLove]

Yo, Malleus! Good to see ya here. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

How did you know it was me? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I must check up on the banning rules here before I post again, just to be on the safe side.

Just ask Ottava what he did to get banned, then don't do that. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) Otherwise, you should be fine. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[EricBarbour]

Do me a favour. Do you really think you're the first to wave that big stick at me? I'll tell you what I tell everyone who waves it; stick it up your arse. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, I like your talk page.

It's snappy.

I bet you've got some admins hating you.
Anyone who gets blocked by a prick like
Aitias can't be all bad.........(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

[Malleus]

Do me a favour. Do you really think you're the first to wave that big stick at me? I'll tell you what I tell everyone who waves it; stick it up your arse. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, I like your talk page.

It's snappy.

I bet you've got some admins hating you.
Anyone who gets blocked by a prick like
Aitias can't be all bad.........(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

I flatter myself that there are more than just"some" admins who hate me. But they couldn't possibly hate me more than I hate them.

[LaraLove]

Do me a favour. Do you really think you're the first to wave that big stick at me? I'll tell you what I tell everyone who waves it; stick it up your arse. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, I like your talk page.

It's snappy.

I bet you've got some admins hating you.
Anyone who gets blocked by a prick like
Aitias can't be all bad.........(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

I flatter myself that there are more than just"some" admins who hate me. But they couldn't possibly hate me more than I hate them.

Haha. Eric's comment reminds me of an award Ling.Nut made for me a couple summers ago. "The Wasabi on the Wiki-sushi" award. He wrote: "I like reading your emails and talk page postings, Lara. I can always count on your comments to be...spicy? Zingy? Something with a little kick? :-) ... You are the wasabi on the wiki-sushi. :-) Ling.Nut 5 September 2007 (UTC)"

That's fitting for you, I think, Malleus. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Lar]

Do me a favour. Do you really think you're the first to wave that big stick at me? I'll tell you what I tell everyone who waves it; stick it up your arse. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, I like your talk page.

It's snappy.

I bet you've got some admins hating you.
Anyone who gets blocked by a prick like
Aitias can't be all bad.........(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

I flatter myself that there are more than just"some" admins who hate me. But they couldn't possibly hate me more than I hate them.

Do you wish every admin to hate you? For if you do, you fail. I know of at least one who does not.

[Malleus]

Do you wish every admin to hate you? For if you do, you fail. I know of at least one who does not.

I have grown to despise the system of petty rules they enforce with so much finger-wagging and use of the naughty-corner. Do I hate all of them, or wish all them to hate me? Not especially, but I do have grave doubts about the integrity of anyone with the power to make a difference who chooses instead to standly idly by watching the collapse and disintegration of a project that I once thought promised so much. So I wouldn't piss on any of them if they were on fire.

[AlioTheFool]

I must check up on the banning rules here before I post again, just to be on the safe side.

This is well funny. Wikipedia can be so entertaining. Thank you very much.

Seemed reasonable to me. Both talk in word salad and have a pretentious tendency to use foreign languages inappropriately.

But that would cast far too wide a net!

[seicer]

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 Graphs

Some 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:

[Malleus]

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.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[EricBarbour]

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.

New Administrators and Resignation Graphs

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".

[Milton Roe]

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)

[Malleus]

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.

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)

[Eva Destruction]

I have grown to despise the system of petty rules they enforce with so much finger-wagging and use of the naughty-corner. Do I hate all of them, or wish all them to hate me? Not especially, but I do have grave doubts about the integrity of anyone with the power to make a difference who chooses instead to standly idly by watching the collapse and disintegration of a project that I once thought promised so much. So I wouldn't piss on any of them if they were on fire.

And we love you too… (Does this mean I have to give up being your protector now?)

[Malleus]

(Does this mean I have to give up being your protector now?)

That made me laugh too. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[seicer]

Is there a page that lists inactive administrators, or is this one of those "I need to check the categories and the associated timestamp" deals?

[Sarcasticidealist]

Is there a page that lists inactive administrators, or is this one of those "I need to check the categories and the associated timestamp" deals?

Here.

This post has been edited by Sarcasticidealist:

[seicer]

The list for 2008 is ... incredibly high compared to prior years. The last three months of 2008 alone is quite an alarming number.

[Sarcasticidealist]

The list for 2008 is ... incredibly high compared to prior years. The last three months of 2008 alone is quite an alarming number.

Assuming you're talking about inactive administrators (rather than former ones), you have to remember that a dynamic list like that is necessarily going to be recent-heavy.

[seicer]

Oh, thanks. For some reason, I had assumed that it was listing former administrators at one point or another, but then the list would be exceedingly lengthy. I guess one could take a look at the trend every month, but that would be too time consuming.

[Alex]

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?

[Malleus]

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.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[Alex]

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.

[Malleus]

... aside from maybe a handful of rogue admins, all desysopped ...

You're one of those, aren't you?

[Alex]

... aside from maybe a handful of rogue admins, all desysopped ...

You're one of those, aren't you?

Try again.

[gomi]

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]

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]

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:

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?

[Malleus]

... aside from maybe a handful of rogue admins, all desysopped ...

You're one of those, aren't you?

Try again.

Ah yes, I remember now. You jumped before you were pushed.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[Wikileaker]

Malleus, I love you and have always loved you.

[Malleus]

Malleus, I love you and have always loved you.

How did you know that William James is one of my heroes? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[Alex]

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:

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?

It helps if you don't pick and choose what to quote from me.

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).

Thank you for finding the example. Have a sticker.

[One]

And you're Malleus Fatuorum? Nice to meet you.

Can we split off the Malleus-Wikileaker-Alex lovefest?

[Milton Roe]

And you're Malleus Fatuorum? Nice to meet you.

Can we split off the Malleus-Wikileaker-Alex lovefest?

Yeah, this thread sucks majorly.

[Bottled_Spider]

And you're Malleus Fatuorum? Nice to meet you.

Can we split off the Malleus-Wikileaker-Alex lovefest?

Yeah, this thread sucks majorly.

Lucky little majorly. There's a first time for everything, eh?!

[Wikileaker]

And you're Malleus Fatuorum? Nice to meet you.

Can we split off the Malleus-Wikileaker-Alex lovefest?

I'm not feeling the love from you. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

[wikiwhistle]

And you're Malleus Fatuorum? Nice to meet you.

Can we split off the Malleus-Wikileaker-Alex lovefest?

Yeah, this thread sucks majorly.

Lucky little majorly. There's a first time for everything, eh?!

You think it's the first time? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) I heard he spends a lot of time in Manchester (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) Or did I get that wrong?

[Alex]

And you're Malleus Fatuorum? Nice to meet you.

Can we split off the Malleus-Wikileaker-Alex lovefest?

Yeah, this thread sucks majorly.

Lucky little majorly. There's a first time for everything, eh?!

You think it's the first time? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) I heard he spends a lot of time in Manchester (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) Or did I get that wrong?

Yeah, me and Malleus out on the town. It's really fun! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[seicer]

Still digging through the data, but here is an updated graph (last):
"Total, new and resigned administrators total sorted by beginning of month, March 2008 June 2007 to March 2009"
http://www.americanbyways.com/googlechart/index.php

The number of total inactive administrators has increased steadily. I'm digging through 2007 data now.

This post has been edited by seicer:

[Gold heart]

Still digging through the data, but here is an updated graph (last):
"Total, new and resigned administrators total sorted by beginning of month, March 2008 June 2007 to March 2009"
http://www.americanbyways.com/googlechart/index.php

The number of total inactive administrators has increased steadily. I'm digging through 2007 data now.

Many of the more wise admins hide their tools, and take a back seat most of the time. The active admins get burned out.

[EricBarbour]

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.

Is this the "collegial atmosphere" I've heard so much about? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

[gadfly]

Is this the "collegial atmosphere" I've heard so much about? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

Actually, real life academic debate at conferences, and so on, is not the lovey-dovey affair that the rose-tinted glasses that wikipedia would like to have us believe when they indulge in their love-hate relationship of both downplaying the potential contributions of real experts as well as trying to ape their idealised and false idea of the ways matters really proceed in academia: I have never seen such visciousness as I have in some hard yet highly important and productive academic debates. On one occasion when I was giving a talk, others had to gently calm down an attendee from getting out of his seat to throw a few punches at me when I pointed out his inconsistent premises in his criticism of my main points. The matter was resolved by continued discussion, not with exclusion or expulsion, and progress was made. Real intellectual progress, striving towards clarity etc, is a struggle in both metaphorical and real terms, often requiring real courage, and the imposition of all the wiki-lurv we see can become just a tool to exclude real contributors and opportunities for real progress.

The civility rules often used by the mind-guards to root out and deal with real exasperation with some infantile passive-aggression or incompentences in members of the in-group is such a laughable signal that those who hold the power don't seem to have a clue. I would have said it becomes a means of allowing the triumph of mediocrity over excellence, but we are now not even seeing mediocrity triumph.

[Guido den Broeder]

Still digging through the data, but here is an updated graph (last):
"Total, new and resigned administrators total sorted by beginning of month, June 2007 to March 2009"
http://www.americanbyways.com/googlechart/index.php

I very telling chart. Thanks, Seicer.

[dogbiscuit]

Still digging through the data, but here is an updated graph (last):
"Total, new and resigned administrators total sorted by beginning of month, June 2007 to March 2009"
http://www.americanbyways.com/googlechart/index.php

I very telling chart. Thanks, Seicer.

The last graph would be more useful if it also had the number of active administrators, which would then give the complete story.

[seicer]

I could do that later today, but I was afraid that it would drown out the already hard-to-tell resigned/new bit. I'll probably remove those two indicators since you can just look at the graph above.

Working on that now, but it's going to take a while because of how the administrators are grouped.

This post has been edited by seicer:

[dogbiscuit]

I could do that later today, but I was afraid that it would drown out the already hard-to-tell resigned/new bit. I'll probably remove those two indicators since you can just look at the graph above.

Cool, I'm a bit of a fan of How to Lie with Statistics from many years back, and graphs that aren't complete bring me out in a nervous twitch (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) I wanted to see whether this was a significant impact on the number of admins, or whether the graph of admins was essentially flat.

[Eva Destruction]

Looking at this list it sems to suggest that since September 2007 (when the bot started logging the number each day), "number of active admins" has been fairly steady at somewhere between 950-1000.

This post has been edited by Eva Destruction:

[seicer]

hmmm... won't let me link to images here, but I've updated the page with just three graphs:
http://www.americanbyways.com/googlechart/index.php

[Eva Destruction]

hmmm... won't let me link to images here, but I've updated the page with just three graphs:
http://www.americanbyways.com/googlechart/index.php

I don't believe for one instant that the number of active admins fell from 944 to 724 last month, especially since it's currently at 932. I think you've a glitch in your statistics somewhere.

[seicer]

Just re-ran March numbers. Based on data from 1 March 2009:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=274097442
A-F: 245 total count (1+52+41+52+49+30+20)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=274097504
G-O: 242 total count (34+21+10+40+30+18+52+22+15)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=274097547
P-Z: 237 total count (32+1+50+69+37+4+11+19+7+2+5)

Total: 724

I'm not for sure what explains the drop, only that it may be attributed to a rise in inactive and semi-active numbers, or those who did not put their name into the [[WP:FORMER]] list. Or if the bot malfunctioned.

--

Think it was a bot glitch, because here is 12 March:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=276706693
A-F: 307 total count
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=276706741
G-O: 320 total count
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=276706779
P-Z: 305 total count

Total: 932

Good eye there (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) I'll update the graph later today.

This post has been edited by seicer:

[LaraLove]

The resignations aren't right either. Your graphs put 1 resignation in each month from Jan - Mar. According to FORMER, there were 9 in January (including me), 3 in February, and 6 in March so far. There could have been others that didn't make the list, but those are for sure.

I think, perhaps, your script duplicated October 2007 - March 2008 for its October 2008 - March 2009 statistics.