Admin resignations

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sat Aug 23, 2014 1:49 am

Oddly enough, there have been no updates to the active-admins charts on Commons since September 2012.

As of right now, the "official list" says 612 "active" admins. And keep in mind that about 200 of them are actually doing minimal work in order to avoid desysopping.

Unread post by **tarantino** » Sat Aug 23, 2014 1:55 am

Hex wrote:I figure I might as well save someone else from having to add me to this thread.

Scott (T-C-L)

congratulations :)

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Sat Aug 23, 2014 4:25 am

tarantino wrote:
Hex wrote:I figure I might as well save someone else from having to add me to this thread.

Scott (T-C-L)
congratulations

Poking around a bit, it looks like the idiocy of the place just finally became too much. Is that a fair statement?

Anthonyhcole · Unread post by **Anthonyhcole** » Sat Aug 23, 2014 5:12 am

Zoloft wrote:
tarantino wrote:
Hex wrote:I figure I might as well save someone else from having to add me to this thread.

Scott (T-C-L)
congratulations
Poking around a bit, it looks like the idiocy of the place just finally became too much. Is that a fair statement?

Welcome back to the outer circle.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Sat Aug 23, 2014 2:43 pm

Zoloft wrote: Poking around a bit, it looks like the idiocy of the place just finally became too much. Is that a fair statement?

I've been thinking about it for a while.

It was going to Wikimania the other week that provided the tipping point. I knew a long time ago that I'd lost the faith, but being among them in person was just something else entirely. Added to that, I spent the following weekend with an entirely different group of people, also largely strangers, but genuinely loving and thoughtful - showing what a hollow mockery Jimmy Wales' uses of those terms are - and committed time to serious consideration of priorities and directions.

I'm 34 years old. My association with Wikipedia started 12 years ago: that's over a third of my entire life. What have I really achieved there in that time? What will I achieve if I'm still there when I'm 40? Or even 50? That would be over half my life. What guarantee is there it would be something I still wanted to be associated with by that time?

I tried to be a good man there. I really did. But it was so difficult, and I'm so tired. My optimism is gone, and if I can't be optimistic about something, I don't want to spend my life doing it. Time to move on.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sat Aug 23, 2014 2:47 pm

Hex wrote:
Zoloft wrote: Poking around a bit, it looks like the idiocy of the place just finally became too much. Is that a fair statement?
I've been thinking about it for a while.

It was going to Wikimania the other week that provided the tipping point. I knew a long time ago that I'd lost the faith, but being among them in person was just something else entirely. Added to that, I spent the following weekend with an entirely different group of people, also largely strangers, but genuinely loving and thoughtful - showing what a hollow mockery Jimmy Wales' uses of those terms are - and committed time to serious consideration of priorities and directions.

I'm 34 years old. My association with Wikipedia started 12 years ago: that's over a third of my entire life. What have I really achieved there in that time? What will I achieve if I'm still there when I'm 40? Or even 50? That would be over half my life. What guarantee is there it would be something I still wanted to be associated with by that time?

I tried to be a good man there. I really did. But it was so difficult, and I'm so tired. My optimism is gone, and if I can't be optimistic about something, I don't want to spend my life doing it. Time to move on.

I think you should consider writing a full length essay on this for the blog.

RfB

Kiefer.Wolfowitz · Unread post by **Kiefer.Wolfowitz** » Sat Aug 23, 2014 3:42 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Hex wrote:
Zoloft wrote: Poking around a bit, it looks like the idiocy of the place just finally became too much. Is that a fair statement?
I've been thinking about it for a while.

It was going to Wikimania the other week that provided the tipping point. I knew a long time ago that I'd lost the faith, but being among them in person was just something else entirely. Added to that, I spent the following weekend with an entirely different group of people, also largely strangers, but genuinely loving and thoughtful - showing what a hollow mockery Jimmy Wales' uses of those terms are - and committed time to serious consideration of priorities and directions.

I'm 34 years old. My association with Wikipedia started 12 years ago: that's over a third of my entire life. What have I really achieved there in that time? What will I achieve if I'm still there when I'm 40? Or even 50? That would be over half my life. What guarantee is there it would be something I still wanted to be associated with by that time?

I tried to be a good man there. I really did. But it was so difficult, and I'm so tired. My optimism is gone, and if I can't be optimistic about something, I don't want to spend my life doing it. Time to move on.
I think you should consider writing a full length essay on this for the blog.

RfB

You both should read the discussion of disillusionment and exodus from the Democratic Socialists of America (T-H-L) by George Packer (T-H-L):

George Packer wrote: year after year, our ranks dwindled; the evenings spent phoning snappish people who barely seemed aware that they were still listed as members brought in less and less money; the board exhausted itself trying to stay alive so we could endure another year of fund-raising so that we could stay alive ... like some ancient organism mindlessly perpetuating its own existence.
...
But there was a contingent of people who seemed to have nothing else going on--marginal, odd, a whiff of paranoia about them. One member was apparently normal in all respects except that he had an overly loud voice, and somehow this seemed linked to his being a socialist. Another insisted on writing her name with all lower-case letters. And what did they see in my face? Maybe just joining made us odd. Maybe oddness made us join. In friends, I might have found these peculiarities trivial; in comrades, I was hyperalert to every asocial quirk and twitch, for they implicated me. And this seemed to defeat the entire enterprise. I was supposed to be feeling solidarity with my brothers and sisters, and instead I was noticing that someone's navel was exposed.
...
Once I heard [Irving Howe (T-H-L)] speak at a DSA national convention. The Berlin Wall had fallen that week; party chairman Michael Harrington (T-H-L) had died a few months before, and whether the organization he led would meaningfully survive his death was a real question. Howe, stooped and white-maned and weary, gave a gloomy, chiding speech in which he told the gathered democratic socialists that they had two years to reconstruct their organization, two years of hard work to turn themselves into the experts on social policy, the tireless activists and writers that Harrington had been, or else DSA would become a collection of nice, irrelevant people who liked to get together once a year or so. Then he took questions. I had one. I pointed out that socialism had been in decline since before I was born--since before he was born. Why did it have only two more years to decline?

"You know," Howe replied with a sly smile, "I ask the same thing about myself. You decline, and decline, and then one day you just stop."

"Sisyphus in the basement: Reflections of a lapsed socialist." Harper's Monthly. July 1998
http://harpers.org/archive/1998/07/sisy ... -basement/

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Dem ... pics/21149

Mason · Unread post by **Mason** » Sat Aug 23, 2014 3:58 pm

Looks like we've lost Vejvančický as well.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Sat Aug 23, 2014 4:45 pm

Mason wrote:Looks like we've lost Vejvančický as well.

That is truly sad. Honest and perseverant people like Vejvančický are all that the project has, the only battleline in between truth and reliability, and an army of spivs.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sat Aug 23, 2014 9:08 pm

Hex wrote:It was going to Wikimania the other week that provided the tipping point. I knew a long time ago that I'd lost the faith, but being among them in person was just something else entirely. Added to that, I spent the following weekend with an entirely different group of people, also largely strangers, but genuinely loving and thoughtful - showing what a hollow mockery Jimmy Wales' uses of those terms are - and committed time to serious consideration of priorities and directions.

I'm 34 years old. My association with Wikipedia started 12 years ago: that's over a third of my entire life. What have I really achieved there in that time? What will I achieve if I'm still there when I'm 40? Or even 50? That would be over half my life. What guarantee is there it would be something I still wanted to be associated with by that time?

I tried to be a good man there. I really did. But it was so difficult, and I'm so tired. My optimism is gone, and if I can't be optimistic about something, I don't want to spend my life doing it. Time to move on.

Sorry to see this. Believe me, you're far from alone. The problem is that it can't be openly discussed on Wikipedia itself, anywhere. I suspect the place's craziness and paranoia is accelerating.

Randy from Boise wrote:I think you should consider writing a full length essay on this for the blog.

Not a bad idea, although it will be ignored by the hardcore "insiders", at least one could talk a few other disgruntled people into re-evaluating their presence on WP. They all need to do that, hardcores included.

Mancunium · Unread post by **Mancunium** » Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:10 pm

Hex wrote:
Zoloft wrote: Poking around a bit, it looks like the idiocy of the place just finally became too much. Is that a fair statement?
I've been thinking about it for a while.

It was going to Wikimania the other week that provided the tipping point. I knew a long time ago that I'd lost the faith, but being among them in person was just something else entirely. Added to that, I spent the following weekend with an entirely different group of people, also largely strangers, but genuinely loving and thoughtful - showing what a hollow mockery Jimmy Wales' uses of those terms are - and committed time to serious consideration of priorities and directions.

I'm 34 years old. My association with Wikipedia started 12 years ago: that's over a third of my entire life. What have I really achieved there in that time? What will I achieve if I'm still there when I'm 40? Or even 50? That would be over half my life. What guarantee is there it would be something I still wanted to be associated with by that time?

I tried to be a good man there. I really did. But it was so difficult, and I'm so tired. My optimism is gone, and if I can't be optimistic about something, I don't want to spend my life doing it. Time to move on.

I know only of your good works in relation to this site, but I am deeply grateful for the help you gave my family when we were in despair. We will be forever thankful for this kindness, which I know is just one of your many virtuous achievements.

-Alex

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:14 pm

Mancunium wrote:
Hex wrote:
Zoloft wrote: Poking around a bit, it looks like the idiocy of the place just finally became too much. Is that a fair statement?
I've been thinking about it for a while.

It was going to Wikimania the other week that provided the tipping point. I knew a long time ago that I'd lost the faith, but being among them in person was just something else entirely. Added to that, I spent the following weekend with an entirely different group of people, also largely strangers, but genuinely loving and thoughtful - showing what a hollow mockery Jimmy Wales' uses of those terms are - and committed time to serious consideration of priorities and directions.

I'm 34 years old. My association with Wikipedia started 12 years ago: that's over a third of my entire life. What have I really achieved there in that time? What will I achieve if I'm still there when I'm 40? Or even 50? That would be over half my life. What guarantee is there it would be something I still wanted to be associated with by that time?

I tried to be a good man there. I really did. But it was so difficult, and I'm so tired. My optimism is gone, and if I can't be optimistic about something, I don't want to spend my life doing it. Time to move on.
I know only of your good works in relation to this site, but I am deeply grateful for the help you gave my family when we were in despair. We will be forever thankful for this kindness, which I know is just one of your many virtuous achievements.

-Alex

Well for what its worth I think the site is losing a good admin. In any case, its very possible that you will be in the same place I am when I turned 40 a couple weeks ago. I also noticed that another admin requested desysop right after you did. So that's like three resignations in a week. Enjoy the reduced stress though Hex. You really aren't missing anything important by not being able to delete, block, protect and abuse.:-)

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Sun Aug 24, 2014 1:23 am

Bummer, Scott. I was hoping you, Alison, and I would be the only ones left standing. We could have elected ourselves to Arbcom, locked the God-King in the tower, and handed it all over to the plebs.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Sun Aug 24, 2014 1:26 am

Scott, you did your best, and left voluntarily. Find your zen.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sun Aug 24, 2014 11:42 am

SB_Johnny wrote:Bummer, Scott. I was hoping you, Alison, and I would be the only ones left standing. We could have elected ourselves to Arbcom, locked the God-King in the tower, and handed it all over to the plebs.

You could start on Wikiversity for practice. Set up an ArbCom there and take it over.

The Joy · Unread post by **The Joy** » Mon Aug 25, 2014 1:35 am

Hex wrote:
Zoloft wrote: Poking around a bit, it looks like the idiocy of the place just finally became too much. Is that a fair statement?
I've been thinking about it for a while.

It was going to Wikimania the other week that provided the tipping point. I knew a long time ago that I'd lost the faith, but being among them in person was just something else entirely. Added to that, I spent the following weekend with an entirely different group of people, also largely strangers, but genuinely loving and thoughtful - showing what a hollow mockery Jimmy Wales' uses of those terms are - and committed time to serious consideration of priorities and directions.

I'm 34 years old. My association with Wikipedia started 12 years ago: that's over a third of my entire life. What have I really achieved there in that time? What will I achieve if I'm still there when I'm 40? Or even 50? That would be over half my life. What guarantee is there it would be something I still wanted to be associated with by that time?

I tried to be a good man there. I really did. But it was so difficult, and I'm so tired. My optimism is gone, and if I can't be optimistic about something, I don't want to spend my life doing it. Time to move on.

Reading the notes on your talkpage (except for one by the smartass MZMcBride), I thought the worse. Glad to see you're just moving on and not... you know.... moving on.

lonza leggiera · Unread post by **lonza leggiera** » Mon Aug 25, 2014 4:38 am

Eloquence (T-C-L) (Erik Möller) has now resigned as an admin on English Wikipedia.

eagle · Unread post by **eagle** » Mon Aug 25, 2014 11:23 am

lonza leggiera wrote:Eloquence (T-C-L) (Erik Möller) has now resigned as an admin on English Wikipedia.

This follows the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ve_rights. The admin rights were given to Moller in 2003 on a temporary basis to move three pages and were kept since that time.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Mon Aug 25, 2014 11:57 am

lonza leggiera wrote:Eloquence (T-C-L) (Erik Möller) has now resigned as an admin on English Wikipedia.

He's still an admin on meta, and of course he's still Staff.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Wed Aug 27, 2014 10:11 am

Poetlister wrote:
lonza leggiera wrote:Eloquence (T-C-L) (Erik Möller) has now resigned as an admin on English Wikipedia.
He's still an admin on meta, and of course he's still Staff.

And he has employees who are still administrators, who can do whatever insane or idiotic thing he wants to happen on Wikipedia. Nothing changes.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Fri Aug 29, 2014 10:00 am

My thanks to everyone who posted nice comments above. I'm lucky to have found you all.

I spent the first couple of days after resigning looking at my watchlist as usual, but not until I'd removed all noticeboards and project-related pages. Within a day I saw an edit to an article I watch that I would normally have corrected straight away. Not touching it felt weird. Soon after that I removed all Wikipedia-related browser bookmarks. Then I logged out. Disengaging from something that's been part of my life so long feels very strange to say the least. But it is good.

Since a couple of days ago I've been putting myself, when I encounter the site, in the shoes of a critical, but non-editing reader. It's weird. There are mistakes everywhere. Instead of seeing Wikipedia as something to fix as a matter of course, it's become something that I just have to learn to cope with seeing all the time. That's eye-opening. But changing from the daily barrage of thoughts of "hey, I'll fix that" to "eh, whatever, a mistake on Wikipedia" is really starting to grow on me.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Fri Aug 29, 2014 9:00 pm

Hex wrote:My thanks to everyone who posted nice comments above. I'm lucky to have found you all.

I spent the first couple of days after resigning looking at my watchlist as usual, but not until I'd removed all noticeboards and project-related pages. Within a day I saw an edit to an article I watch that I would normally have corrected straight away. Not touching it felt weird. Soon after that I removed all Wikipedia-related browser bookmarks. Then I logged out. Disengaging from something that's been part of my life so long feels very strange to say the least. But it is good.

Since a couple of days ago I've been putting myself, when I encounter the site, in the shoes of a critical, but non-editing reader. It's weird. There are mistakes everywhere. Instead of seeing Wikipedia as something to fix as a matter of course, it's become something that I just have to learn to cope with seeing all the time. That's eye-opening. But changing from the daily barrage of thoughts of "hey, I'll fix that" to "eh, whatever, a mistake on Wikipedia" is really starting to grow on me.

If you've kept even a rough idea day by day how you're 'de-toxing' it might make for a good blog post here over the upcoming holidays.

Casliber · Unread post by **Casliber** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:05 am

Zoloft wrote:
Hex wrote:My thanks to everyone who posted nice comments above. I'm lucky to have found you all.

I spent the first couple of days after resigning looking at my watchlist as usual, but not until I'd removed all noticeboards and project-related pages. Within a day I saw an edit to an article I watch that I would normally have corrected straight away. Not touching it felt weird. Soon after that I removed all Wikipedia-related browser bookmarks. Then I logged out. Disengaging from something that's been part of my life so long feels very strange to say the least. But it is good.

Since a couple of days ago I've been putting myself, when I encounter the site, in the shoes of a critical, but non-editing reader. It's weird. There are mistakes everywhere. Instead of seeing Wikipedia as something to fix as a matter of course, it's become something that I just have to learn to cope with seeing all the time. That's eye-opening. But changing from the daily barrage of thoughts of "hey, I'll fix that" to "eh, whatever, a mistake on Wikipedia" is really starting to grow on me.
If you've kept even a rough idea day by day how you're 'de-toxing' it might make for a good blog post here over the upcoming holidays.

Sounds riveting. ....seriously.....checking for stuff. ...not fixing it.....and then wasting time writing a diary about it......

t

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 1:30 am

Hex wrote:My thanks to everyone who posted nice comments above. I'm lucky to have found you all.

I spent the first couple of days after resigning looking at my watchlist as usual, but not until I'd removed all noticeboards and project-related pages. Within a day I saw an edit to an article I watch that I would normally have corrected straight away. Not touching it felt weird. Soon after that I removed all Wikipedia-related browser bookmarks. Then I logged out. Disengaging from something that's been part of my life so long feels very strange to say the least. But it is good.

Since a couple of days ago I've been putting myself, when I encounter the site, in the shoes of a critical, but non-editing reader. It's weird. There are mistakes everywhere. Instead of seeing Wikipedia as something to fix as a matter of course, it's become something that I just have to learn to cope with seeing all the time. That's eye-opening. But changing from the daily barrage of thoughts of "hey, I'll fix that" to "eh, whatever, a mistake on Wikipedia" is really starting to grow on me.

Sisyphus no more!

I edit an article on my watchlist from time to time when the urge strikes me. I do miss a lot of things about being a "dedicated Wikimedian", and still hope things might improve to make it worth participating again (pending revisions (or whatever it's called) would help), but the trend has been downward over the past several years.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 1:53 am

SB_Johnny wrote:
Hex wrote:My thanks to everyone who posted nice comments above. I'm lucky to have found you all.

I spent the first couple of days after resigning looking at my watchlist as usual, but not until I'd removed all noticeboards and project-related pages. Within a day I saw an edit to an article I watch that I would normally have corrected straight away. Not touching it felt weird. Soon after that I removed all Wikipedia-related browser bookmarks. Then I logged out. Disengaging from something that's been part of my life so long feels very strange to say the least. But it is good.

Since a couple of days ago I've been putting myself, when I encounter the site, in the shoes of a critical, but non-editing reader. It's weird. There are mistakes everywhere. Instead of seeing Wikipedia as something to fix as a matter of course, it's become something that I just have to learn to cope with seeing all the time. That's eye-opening. But changing from the daily barrage of thoughts of "hey, I'll fix that" to "eh, whatever, a mistake on Wikipedia" is really starting to grow on me.
Sisyphus no more!

I edit an article on my watchlist from time to time when the urge strikes me. I do miss a lot of things about being a "dedicated Wikimedian", and still hope things might improve to make it worth participating again (pending revisions (or whatever it's called) would help), but the trend has been downward over the past several years.

I'm actually really getting fired up again, despite all the bullshit from San Francisco and JW's steadily more weaselly defense of bureaucracy over community...

WP serves a really massive educational function and it remains satisfying to contribute to that. It's still the most "cost-effective" use of my writing time...

RfB

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 5:02 am

Casliber wrote:
Zoloft wrote:
Hex wrote:My thanks to everyone who posted nice comments above. I'm lucky to have found you all.

I spent the first couple of days after resigning looking at my watchlist as usual, but not until I'd removed all noticeboards and project-related pages. Within a day I saw an edit to an article I watch that I would normally have corrected straight away. Not touching it felt weird. Soon after that I removed all Wikipedia-related browser bookmarks. Then I logged out. Disengaging from something that's been part of my life so long feels very strange to say the least. But it is good.

Since a couple of days ago I've been putting myself, when I encounter the site, in the shoes of a critical, but non-editing reader. It's weird. There are mistakes everywhere. Instead of seeing Wikipedia as something to fix as a matter of course, it's become something that I just have to learn to cope with seeing all the time. That's eye-opening. But changing from the daily barrage of thoughts of "hey, I'll fix that" to "eh, whatever, a mistake on Wikipedia" is really starting to grow on me.
If you've kept even a rough idea day by day how you're 'de-toxing' it might make for a good blog post here over the upcoming holidays.
Sounds riveting. ....seriously.....checking for stuff. ...not fixing it.....and then wasting time writing a diary about it......

t

Feelings, man! His journey home from Wikipedia. You are still living in Lilliput, Gulliver.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sun Aug 31, 2014 2:16 pm

Hex wrote:But changing from the daily barrage of thoughts of "hey, I'll fix that" to "eh, whatever, a mistake on Wikipedia" is really starting to grow on me.

Wait until you complete the cycle and start adding mistakes on purpose. Then Wikipedia will really start to grow on you!

Triptych · Unread post by **Triptych** » Fri Sep 05, 2014 3:16 pm

I let them time pass so as not to appear to be interrupting the "congratulations you resigned, well done" stuff, but the fact is the system lets resigned administrators back in right away. In the mode of Drmies and many others they can change their minds a month or two later, contact a bureaucrat, and be right back in the saddle.

A more convincing resignation would be one that says "should I ever change my mind, I formally request you bureaucrats require me to undergo a new RFA."

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Sat Sep 27, 2014 11:50 am

Here's a strange one:

en Bureaucrat noticeboard

I wish to have my administrator rights removed, on the basis that I abused the position and its authority on several occasions in the past, and also that I have been inactive recently. You may if you wish verify this request by emailing ...@... and/or ...@... . Thank you. Dcoetzee 07:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Meta

Please remove my administrator rights on both the English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. I am making this request on the basis that I have abused my position and authority on several occasions in the past, and also that I have been inactive recently. You may if you wish verify this request by email (...@... and/or ...@...). Thank you. --Dcoetzee (talk) 07:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, we usually give self-resignations a day to see if they change their minds, but how have you abused your position? -- Mentifisto 07:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not currently at liberty to say. Please consider this a serious request. I don't mind waiting a day. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Hacked account?
Someone threatening to "spill some goods" if he doesn't resign?
Fruit loopery?

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Sat Sep 27, 2014 11:55 am

1 More down, 1392 to go.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Sep 27, 2014 1:22 pm

Jim wrote:Here's a strange one:

en Bureaucrat noticeboard
I wish to have my administrator rights removed, on the basis that I abused the position and its authority on several occasions in the past, and also that I have been inactive recently. You may if you wish verify this request by emailing ...@... and/or ...@... . Thank you. Dcoetzee 07:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Meta
Please remove my administrator rights on both the English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. I am making this request on the basis that I have abused my position and authority on several occasions in the past, and also that I have been inactive recently. You may if you wish verify this request by email (...@... and/or ...@...). Thank you. --Dcoetzee (talk) 07:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, we usually give self-resignations a day to see if they change their minds, but how have you abused your position? -- Mentifisto 07:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not currently at liberty to say. Please consider this a serious request. I don't mind waiting a day. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Hacked account?
Someone threatening to "spill some goods" if he doesn't resign?
Fruit loopery?

That is a strange one! Dcoetzee is one of the most vocal pro-pedophile-tolerance people on Wikipedia, and he was pals with Sue Gardner. Maybe the FBI has finally gotten its act together.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz · Unread post by **Kiefer.Wolfowitz** » Sat Sep 27, 2014 1:49 pm

Jim wrote:Here's a strange one:
en Bureaucrat noticeboard
Dcoetzee wrote:I wish to have my administrator rights removed, on the basis that I abused the position and its authority on several occasions in the past, and also that I have been inactive recently. You may if you wish verify this request by emailing ...@... and/or ...@... . Thank you. Dcoetzee (T-C-L) 07:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Meta
Dcoetzee and Mentifisto wrote:Please remove my administrator rights on both the English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. I am making this request on the basis that I have abused my position and authority on several occasions in the past, and also that I have been inactive recently. You may if you wish verify this request by email (...@... and/or ...@...). Thank you. --Dcoetzee (T-C-L) 07:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, we usually give self-resignations a day to see if they change their minds, but how have you abused your position? -- Mentifisto (T-C-L) 07:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not currently at liberty to say. Please consider this a serious request. I don't mind waiting a day. Dcoetzee (T-C-L) 07:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Hacked account?
Someone threatening to "spill some goods" if he doesn't resign?
Fruit loopery?

An understatement from Newyorkbrad:

Newyorkbrad wrote:I must say that something strikes me as very odd in the wording of this request.Newyorkbrad (T-C-L) 10:49 am, Today (UTC+2)

In the two quoted requests, Dcoetzee nearly appeared to be normal.
A search for "*coetze*" at Wikipediocracy reveals too much information.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Sat Sep 27, 2014 3:29 pm

thekohser wrote:...and he was pals with Sue Gardner. Maybe the FBI has finally gotten its act together.

You surely linked that only so that we could have a "caption competition"?

Although now I see some well-known reporter used it in an article called "Number of women going down on Wikipedia", which is probably good enough...

Kiefer.Wolfowitz · Unread post by **Kiefer.Wolfowitz** » Sat Sep 27, 2014 4:13 pm

Jim wrote:

Captain Kirk wrote:You bleed too much.... You're too pure and noble. You saving the last of its kind or has this become [your] private heaven, here on this planet? This thing becomes wife, lover, best friend, wise man, fool, idol, slave. Isn't a bad life to have everyone in the universe at your beck and call, and you win all the arguments.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Sat Sep 27, 2014 5:16 pm

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:
Captain Kirk wrote:You bleed too much.... You're too pure and noble. You saving the last of its kind or has this become [your] private heaven, here on this planet? This thing becomes wife, lover, best friend, wise man, fool, idol, slave. Isn't a bad life to have everyone in the universe at your beck and call, and you win all the arguments.

Bravo - extra points for Original Series Trek, always.

via Imgflip Meme Maker

mac · Unread post by **mac** » Sun Sep 28, 2014 1:06 am

Jim wrote:Here's a strange one:[...]

His userpage states his "homepage" is http://moonflare.com/ and on that page, it links to his Facebook, where he made this post just a couple of weeks ago:

Derrick Coetzee wrote:Will not be checking Facebook or posting indefinitely. If you need me please email at dc@moonflare.com

I wonder what happened...

Maybe it had something to do with this:

== Identification ==
When the English Wikipedia enacted their policy I spoke against the specific provision that users who self-identified as pedophiles should be blocked automatically. In short: a pedophile is a person who experiences sexual attraction to minors, and many of them decide to be ethical, comply with the law, and not act on those attractions. I believe that such responsible pedophiles should be welcome in our community. The many other suggested reasons for blocking (they make other users uncomfortable; they lead to bad PR; etc) would be obviously unreasonable in any other context. The recent discussion at [[Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems]] suggests that many other users may also feel this way. As such, I move to strike the language "or who identify themselves as pedophiles". I would support the proposal following such an amendment. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] ([[User talk:Dcoetzee|talk]]) 05:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

(emphasis added)
(edited)

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sun Sep 28, 2014 8:49 am

Obviously there is a difference between someone who is attracted to children, i.e. a pedophile, and a criminal, i.e. someone who acts on those impulses. Nobody would imagine that every man who is attracted to adult females is a rapist. But many people won't appreciate these fine distinctions.

eppur si muove · Unread post by **eppur si muove** » Sun Sep 28, 2014 9:03 am

Poetlister wrote:Obviously there is a difference between someone who is attracted to children, i.e. a pedophile, and a criminal, i.e. someone who acts on those impulses. Nobody would imagine that every man who is attracted to adult females is a rapist. But many people won't appreciate these fine distinctions.

And the other to add is that the criminal may find it easier to target someone who does not conform to their primary sexual attraction. People in single-sex settings might identify as straight but might still target those who are available.

That said, I find it hard to understand why someone would want to identify on Wikipedia as a paedophile unless there was something else going on, either political or trolling.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz · Unread post by **Kiefer.Wolfowitz** » Sun Sep 28, 2014 12:48 pm

Poetlister wrote:Obviously there is a difference between someone who is attracted to children, i.e. a pedophile, and a criminal, i.e. someone who acts on those impulses. Nobody would imagine that every man who is attracted to adult females is a rapist. But many people won't appreciate these fine distinctions.

A man who proclaims that he is sexually attracted to minors, especially to pre-pubescent minors, is a creep, regardless of whether he attempts to have sex with minors. Such a man would have difficulty living in any community for long, I suspect.

Of men who announce themselves to be pedophiles, what proportion have no history of trying to seduce children?

Poetlister's interjection of rape is bizarre.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun Sep 28, 2014 11:16 pm

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:
Poetlister wrote:Obviously there is a difference between someone who is attracted to children, i.e. a pedophile, and a criminal, i.e. someone who acts on those impulses. Nobody would imagine that every man who is attracted to adult females is a rapist. But many people won't appreciate these fine distinctions.
A man who proclaims that he is sexually attracted to minors, especially to pre-pubescent minors, is a creep, regardless of whether he attempts to have sex with minors. Such a man would have difficulty living in any community for long, I suspect.

Of men who announce themselves to be pedophiles, what proportion have no history of trying to seduce children?

Poetlister's interjection of rapeis bizarre.

Lemme help.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Wed Oct 08, 2014 3:51 am

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:
Jim wrote:Here's a strange one:
en Bureaucrat noticeboard
Dcoetzee wrote:I wish to have my administrator rights removed, on the basis that I abused the position and its authority on several occasions in the past, and also that I have been inactive recently. You may if you wish verify this request by emailing ...@... and/or ...@... . Thank you. Dcoetzee (T-C-L) 07:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Meta
Dcoetzee and Mentifisto wrote:Please remove my administrator rights on both the English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. I am making this request on the basis that I have abused my position and authority on several occasions in the past, and also that I have been inactive recently. You may if you wish verify this request by email (...@... and/or ...@...). Thank you. --Dcoetzee (T-C-L) 07:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, we usually give self-resignations a day to see if they change their minds, but how have you abused your position? -- Mentifisto (T-C-L) 07:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not currently at liberty to say. Please consider this a serious request. I don't mind waiting a day. Dcoetzee (T-C-L) 07:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Hacked account?
Someone threatening to "spill some goods" if he doesn't resign?
Fruit loopery?
An understatement from Newyorkbrad:
Newyorkbrad wrote:I must say that something strikes me as very odd in the wording of this request.Newyorkbrad (T-C-L) 10:49 am, Today (UTC+2)

Well, seems like Brad would probably know whatever it was that was odd about it now...

from: User talk:Dcoetzee

Block
I have blocked you indefinitely. If you wish to appeal this block, please email arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

(Block log); 03:21 . . GorillaWarfare (talk | contribs) blocked Dcoetzee (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎(Please do not unblock without consent from the Arbitration Committee)

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:13 am

Jim wrote:Well, seems like Brad would probably know whatever it was that was odd about it now...
from: User talk:Dcoetzee

Block
I have blocked you indefinitely. If you wish to appeal this block, please email arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

(Block log); 03:21 . . GorillaWarfare (talk | contribs) blocked Dcoetzee (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎(Please do not unblock without consent from the Arbitration Committee)

Unless he actually ends up in jail for some reason, I predict that he will return within one year.
And they will hand back his admin gun without questions.

PS, anyone remember this 2013 IRC log?

[05:10] <Dcoetzee> Wikipediocracy lurks in every channel, looking for symptoms of corruption, etc. 
[05:10] <russavia> oh srlsy, who gives a fuck about wikipediocracy 
[05:11] <Dcoetzee> People who don't want to get arrested 
[05:11] <Dcoetzee> Wikipediocracy harasses, fabricates crimes, shows up at your doorstep uninvited 
[05:11] <Dcoetzee> They are terrifying 
[05:11] <Dcoetzee> And I'd rather not give them a reason to pay attention to me 
[05:11] <russavia> me asking you, would be no different to me asking Yar* for his opinion on a Polish copyright issue, or Romain* on a Dutch FOP issue, etc 
[05:12] <russavia> seriously, i can't believe that people are shit scared of those fools 
[05:12] <Dcoetzee> I've seen them ruin people's lives multiple times 
[05:14] <Dcoetzee> Anyway, it's in the interest of fairness and transparency to DR requests are made on-wiki and heard by an impartial audience 
[05:14] <Dcoetzee> Don't need inspiration from a lynch mob to want to do the right thing 
[05:15] <Dcoetzee> With great power comes great responsibility and all that 
[05:19] * Invadinado (~Inva@wikimedia/Invadinado) Quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 
[05:20] <Dcoetzee> Anyway all I'm saying is I take canvassing seriously and if you ask me to look at a DR, I never will, sooo don't

"I've seen them ruin people's lives multiple times"?
Really? PROVE IT.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:23 am

I don't think I will ever get tired of being right.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Wed Oct 08, 2014 5:51 am

I guess you forgot about our member-in-good-standing dcoetzee making this post: link viewtopic.php?p=59946#p59946[/link]

dcoetzee wrote:I wanted to apologize for making the statements in the quoted chat. I have no evidence that Wikipediocracy has ever engaged in fabrication of crimes or stalking. ...

A settled issue. Do we really want to dig it up again?

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:25 am

Hm, I completely missed that the first time around. Making note.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz · Unread post by **Kiefer.Wolfowitz** » Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:48 am

An arbitration-committee block with no specific reason given and orders that only the arbitration-committee can unblock. Whatever could that be for?

EricBarbour wrote:
Jim wrote:Well, seems like Brad would probably know whatever it was that was odd about it now...
from: User talk:Dcoetzee

Block

I have blocked you indefinitely. If you wish to appeal this block, please email arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. –
GorillaWarfare (T-C-L) (talk) 03:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

(Block log); 03:21 . . GorillaWarfare blocked Dcoetzee (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎(Please do not unblock without consent from the Arbitration Committee)
Unless he actually ends up in jail for some reason, I predict that he will return within one year.
And they will hand back his admin gun without questions.

PS, anyone remember this 2013 IRC log?

[05:10] <Dcoetzee (T-C-L)> Wikipediocracy lurks in every channel, looking for symptoms of corruption, etc. 
[05:10] <russavia (T-C-L)> oh srlsy, who gives a fuck about wikipediocracy 
[05:11] <Dcoetzee> People who don't want to get arrested 
[05:11] <Dcoetzee> Wikipediocracy harasses, fabricates crimes, shows up at your doorstep uninvited 
[05:11] <Dcoetzee> They are terrifying 
[05:11] <Dcoetzee> And I'd rather not give them a reason to pay attention to me 
[05:11] <russavia> me asking you, would be no different to me asking Yar* for his opinion on a Polish copyright issue, or Romain* on a Dutch FOP issue, etc 
[05:12] <russavia> seriously, i can't believe that people are shit scared of those fools 
[05:12] <Dcoetzee> I've seen them ruin people's lives multiple times 
[05:14] <Dcoetzee> Anyway, it's in the interest of fairness and transparency to DR requests are made on-wiki and heard by an impartial audience 
[05:14] <Dcoetzee> Don't need inspiration from a lynch mob to want to do the right thing 
[05:15] <Dcoetzee> With great power comes great responsibility and all that 
[05:19] * Invadinado (~Inva@wikimedia/Invadinado) Quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 
[05:20] <Dcoetzee> Anyway all I'm saying is I take canvassing seriously and if you ask me to look at a DR, I never will, sooo don't 
"I've seen them ruin people's lives multiple times"?
Really? PROVE IT.

Here's another IRC chat, which has been discussed in other threads. An adult contacted a boy/young teenager off-Wikipedia, despite parental objections (and indeed the boy's); contacts included unwanted IMs.

Dcoetzee's response was not to contact the authorities or even the WMF or ArbCom. Instead, he immediately offered to hide the evidence and then to volunteer another administrator to hide the evidence:

thekohser wrote:
Vigilant wrote:An IRC log where demiurge and others talk about [a child]

05:29:17 < sonia (T-C-L)> Demiurge1000 (T-C-L), what's the deal w/ you and [a child]?
583 05:29:48 < Demiurge1000> sonia: He complains to me about U.S. legislation
584 05:29:58 < sonia> heh, okay
585 05:30:08 < sonia> just saw your talk page pop up in my feed of simple
587 05:30:26 < Demiurge1000> At one point, he had my email address
588 05:30:48 < Demiurge1000> And now I think he still has my email address, but he doesn't have access to *his* email address
592 05:31:27 < sonia> heh
593 05:31:49 < sonia> Demiurge1000: if he says anything on-wiki that compromises his safety- or yours, for that matter- do let me know
594 05:32:08 < Demiurge1000> sonia: Indeed
595 05:32:37 < sonia> I'll hide it at once and ring an oversighter if it's particularly egregious
598 05:32:58 * dcoetzee (T-C-L) can revdel if it helps
599 05:33:09 < sonia> dcoetzee: not on simple
600 05:33:12 < dcoetzee> Oh
601 05:33:15 * dcoetzee mixed up
602 05:33:17 < sonia> haha
603 05:33:20 < dcoetzee> But you can revdel on Simple ;-)
604 05:33:29 * sonia revdels dcoetzee's face
605 05:33:47 * dcoetzee revdels Sonia's hidden fears :-P
606 05:33:52 < sonia> o_o
609 05:34:29 < sonia> so you're wandering around faceless and I"m wandering around flouting every law possible?
610 05:34:31 < Demiurge1000> oh god, they call RevDel "hide" on Simple? Figures
Which make me wonder what's been hidden on simple.

Some revisions make me go O_o
http://samwiki.wikkii.com/w/index.php?t ... oldid=2371
No surprise that dcoetzee would show up on such a discussion:

Dcoetzee wrote:"I've already mentioned on [[:en:Wikipedia talk:Sexual content]] my strong opposition to any policy that blocks users solely because they 'self identify as pedophiles' (on the theory that a moral pedophile who does not act on their fantasies or engage in advocacy should be permitted to participate). However, I 'would' support universal cross-wiki blocking of persons pursuing or facilitating relationships with minors. I could go either way on advocacy - sometimes POV pushers do okay on Commons, since it's hard to push an agenda through uploading images alone - while other times they go on making a nuisance of themselves.
Dcoetzee (T-C-L) 05:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)"

Kiefer.Wolfowitz · Unread post by **Kiefer.Wolfowitz** » Wed Oct 08, 2014 8:31 am

"The Wikipedia Adventure" was a WMF-funded project targeting young children, which presented Wikipedia-editing as a spaceship quest.
From a Wikipediocracy thread on The Wikipedia Adventure:

DanMurphy wrote:Dcoetzee (T-C-L)who seems to be driving the project [The Wikipedia Adventure] (got a $5,000 Wikimedia Foundation grant to do it) has occasionally attracted the interest of contributors here.

You may recall that he was an advocate for child pornography fan Beta M continuing to edit Wikipedia projects (which are of course filled with children).
Dcoetzee wrote:I was the one who unblocked the user.
At the time I was not aware of the evidence Geni (T-C-L) presented in this thread, and although I don't think it's grounds for an immediate block, I think it is a concern when the user attempts to directly modify draft policies to reflect their views, etc.
In light of their conflict of interest, I would advice them to stick to discussion pages when involved in policy discussions related to child pornography, and to avoid linking offsite resources related to advocacy. I have no problem with them participating in relevant deletion requests, since DRs are closed by admins and a user's opinion there is weighed only according to its merit (and moreover, their opinions expressed thus far in DRs have been consistent with policy and the law). I believe if the user continues to be conscientious about acting in accordance with policy and the law, the need to block them will not arise. However, we should keep an eye on them, and warn them promptly if they begin to engage in any form of advocacy.
Dcoetzee (T-C-L) 21:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
The long thread on Beta M (T-C-L) at Wikipedia Review is here. We also had a thread here discussing the strange contortions that investigation into his activities yielded at Wikimedia Commons.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Oct 08, 2014 3:37 pm

That Demiwit remains unblocked is a black mark on wikipedia's soul.

He should be a black mark on their sole.

mac · Unread post by **mac** » Wed Oct 08, 2014 8:12 pm

EricBarbour wrote:[...]
PS, anyone remember this 2013 IRC log?
[snip log]

Here is a copy of the complete log at Pastebin.com: link

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Wed Oct 08, 2014 9:00 pm

I find it curious that Dcoetzee was an admin according to link https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... anks_log=1[/link] and GorillaWarfare blocked him today and said to go to the Arbcom before unblocking. Why would she not remove his access to the admin tools? If the admin is blocked by order of the Arbcom, would that not indicate a serious offense worthy of removal of the tools at least temprorarily? Or is being an admin such a thing that they truly are above any rules and therefore exempt from having the tools removed due to an Arbcom enforced ban/block? It seems very very questionable to me.

I also think its pretty funny that she (GorillaWarfare) would tell them to contact the Arbcom mailing list she identified knowing that they will either ignore the email, wait a couple weeks to respond or just tell them no and to go away. GorillaWarfare is the queen of ignoring requests for comment, is about as corrupt of an admin/arb as they come and has absolutely zero interest in building an encyclopedia outisde what it can do to pad her resume or ego. When she does say something, her comments are so vague and blan they lack any thought or indication of intelligence. They are just generic, vague statements of the vanilla variety. She's just a college kid with no job, no qualifications to be on the Arbcom and too much free time playing god as a member of the Arbcom to stroke her ego. I have no respect for her whatsoever, so regardless of the reason why she blocked him (and it very well may be a valid reason) I would seriously question any decision she made to do anything.