Tamzin resigns as an admin

[Giraffe Stapler]

Resignation (Tamzin)

The loss of a dear friend, a far greater editor than I'll ever be, has put in perspective what I'd been mulling over for a while. I've lost the stomach to be a part of this site's toxic back-room culture. I could enumerate the litany of problems with our culture, but they all boil down to one thing: We aren't nice. I like being nice, and I find that these parts of Wikipedia make me less nice, and so I will stop engaging with them.

The best of luck to the rest of you. One parting thought: You'll fix RfA about a year after you've fixed AN/I. Anyways, I'll still be around in mainspace, doing what this site is actually for: building an encyclopedia.

I express my gratitude, as always, to the bureaucrat team. Please also remove my EFM flag. I would appreciate regaining page mover and template editor, as they occasionally come in handy in content work. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 16:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I think most of us will agree that some of Wikipedia is not nice and it can make people less nice as a result. (Some of us may even acknowledge that we are the ones who make Wikipedia not nice.)

[Giraffe Stapler]

[MODS] It looks like I was late again with the breaking news. You can delete this or merge it to Drama Queen resigns. I think my title is, um, nicer, though.

Threads merged -t

[Kraken]

I've lost the stomach to be a part of this site's toxic back-room culture. I could enumerate the litany of problems with our culture, but they all boil down to one thing: We aren't nice. I like being nice, and I find that these parts of Wikipedia make me less nice, and so I will stop engaging with them.

You arrived at the Night Watch's RfA with absolutely nobody saying they were a bad person. Quite the opposite.

But you were the first opposer, bringing up a six month old comment, that made it sound like him telling you that sarcasm is unproductive is akin to victim blaming. Nobody else raised any other issues.

It became all about that one incident. They were cast as a tone policer, when in reality policy supports their view of the tone you used, just not necessarily how they raised it, in the glare of an RfA. But they weren't an Admin then. He could be forgiven this mistake by someone who was. Evidently not.

As the oppsoers rolled in, following your lead, you clearly triggered some sort of crisis in them. All because he was stupid enough to look up to you. He passed RfA, but will forever be known as that guy who lost his mind during his RfA. He finished with similar percentage to you. No, he did better than you did.

Nice would have been to say something at the time or a few days later. Or forever hold your peace.

Wikipedia does indeed need more nice Admins.

[C&B]

Sorry! It started off as a Sticks Nix Hick Pix (T-H-L) title... but went nowhere!

[Tbackus]

I think it might be for the "Oh no, please don't go" that will follow.

[utbc]

I got serious main character vibes at first blush ngl, which would be quite unfortunate in the context. But, it's not unlikely that she (or anyone for that matter, and at any moment), could be going through a crisis herself; that might actually explain if not justify it. I guess she shouldn't be an admin anymore and probably won't be; castigations however could be restrained if not deferred.

[rnu]

I am not surprised. And I guessed the reason before I opened the thread. Wikipedia has a horrible "culture". And of course admins are largely responsible for it both passively because they don't act against it and actively because they contribute a lot to the toxicity. Obviously admins as a group have zero interest in improving this situation. So I understand anyone who sees that they can't be part of the solution (because that would require kicking out a lot of admins) and would rather not be part of the problem. Editors are still part of the problem, but to a far lesser degree than admins.

[ArmasRebane]

I generally don't find the "culture" complaints useful or actionable. Everyone seems to agree ANI or RFA are bad, but no one actually agrees on why that is and what would improve things. I don't know what the "toxic back room culture" even means, either. Beyond that, it's a volunteer project; it's pretty easy to avoid the toxic parts of the wiki under many and most circumstances. Acting like everyone is a secret Hitler is a great way to burn oneself out, though.

[The Blue Newt]

Beyond that, it's a volunteer project; it's pretty easy to avoid the toxic parts of the wiki under many and most circumstances.

True.

Unfortunately, that can also mean “it’s easy to avoid the toxic parts” by abandoning serious subjects, by abandoning quality questions, and so forth.

What’s the point of creating a good article, and then dropping it into the sewage?

[Ron Lybonly]

I am not surprised. And I guessed the reason before I opened the thread. Wikipedia has a horrible "culture". And of course admins are largely responsible for it both passively because they don't act against it and actively because they contribute a lot to the toxicity. Obviously admins as a group have zero interest in improving this situation. So I understand anyone who sees that they can't be part of the solution (because that would require kicking out a lot of admins) and would rather not be part of the problem. Editors are still part of the problem, but to a far lesser degree than admins.

I think the cultural problems start at the front end - treatment of new editors and new articles. The rules are all complicated. New editors break lots of rules. It takes time to work with, teach and encourage misguided new editors. It's easier to just delete the article or warn the editor.

There's also the goats and sheep problem with conflict-of-interest editing. Many prolific editors start out unknowingly breaking rules with some sort of COI edits but those well-intended editors are hidden within the volume of more cynical COI stuff.

Even if do try to help new editors, how do you identify who to work with? You spend several hours over weeks and then they quit. Or they persist in doing inappropriate stuff. Or they're just not very bright. Repeat this experience several times and you give up.

Guarding Wikipedia can coarsen the editors that do it.

[Vigilant]

I am not surprised. And I guessed the reason before I opened the thread. Wikipedia has a horrible "culture". And of course admins are largely responsible for it both passively because they don't act against it and actively because they contribute a lot to the toxicity. Obviously admins as a group have zero interest in improving this situation. So I understand anyone who sees that they can't be part of the solution (because that would require kicking out a lot of admins) and would rather not be part of the problem. Editors are still part of the problem, but to a far lesser degree than admins.

I think the cultural problems start at the front end - treatment of new editors and new articles. The rules are all complicated. New editors break lots of rules. It takes time to work with, teach and encourage misguided new editors. It's easier to just delete the article or warn the editor.

There's also the goats and sheep problem with conflict-of-interest editing. Many prolific editors start out unknowingly breaking rules with some sort of COI edits but those well-intended editors are hidden within the volume of more cynical COI stuff.

Even if do try to help new editors, how do you identify who to work with? You spend several hours over weeks and then they quit. Or they persist in doing inappropriate stuff. Or they're just not very bright. Repeat this experience several times and you give up.

Guarding Wikipedia can coarsen the editors that do it.

The barrier to entry for wikipedia adding new, fresh editors is very high.
This is partly due to the horrifically poor design of the site/markup and partly due to the ever present animosity of the denizens.

[tarantino]

The precipitating event was the death of the 24 year old Vami_IV. His obituary and related gofundme page do not mention a cause, so you can only guess why.

[Kraken]

You can achieve nothing of value by avoiding AN/I. It's Wikipedia. Sometimes you need assistance. If you're working in isolation on articles no one else touches, you're not a Wikipedian, you're a commodity of the WMF.

The cultural problem is the cliques that have formed around certain Administrators to effect behavior that is categorically not nice. See the thread about "I'm glad you're dead" for an example. Do editors randomly spit on the corpses of their dead colleagues, or does it come from a dark place that only Wikipedia knows how to put people in?

Tamzin wasn't one of those Admins as far as I know. But they certainly weren't nice either. She was nowhere to be seen in that incident or any others like that I can recall.

[Giraffe Stapler]

I've lost the stomach to be a part of this site's toxic back-room culture. I could enumerate the litany of problems with our culture, but they all boil down to one thing: We aren't nice. I like being nice, and I find that these parts of Wikipedia make me less nice, and so I will stop engaging with them.

You arrived at the Night Watch's RfA with absolutely nobody saying they were a bad person. Quite the opposite.

But you were the first opposer, bringing up a six month old comment, that made it sound like him telling you that sarcasm is unproductive is akin to victim blaming. Nobody else raised any other issues.

It became all about that one incident. They were cast as a tone policer, when in reality policy supports their view of the tone you used, just not necessarily how they raised it, in the glare of an RfA. But they weren't an Admin then. He could be forgiven this mistake by someone who was. Evidently not.

As the oppsoers rolled in, following your lead, you clearly triggered some sort of crisis in them. All because he was stupid enough to look up to you. He passed RfA, but will forever be known as that guy who lost his mind during his RfA. He finished with similar percentage to you. No, he did better than you did.

Nice would have been to say something at the time or a few days later. Or forever hold your peace.

Wikipedia does indeed need more nice Admins.

Is Tamzin there in the room with you now, Crowken? If you have something to say directly to her, you know you can just send a PM instead of having these fantasy conversations, right?

[Elinruby]

Beyond that, it's a volunteer project; it's pretty easy to avoid the toxic parts of the wiki under many and most circumstances.

True.

Unfortunately, that can also mean “it’s easy to avoid the toxic parts” by abandoning serious subjects, by abandoning quality questions, and so forth.

This

[Pelican]

Say about her what you will, she certainly isn't boring.

This

If you wanna talk like a fucking Redditor, we'll send you to /r/adviceanimals school.

[Kraken]

I've lost the stomach to be a part of this site's toxic back-room culture. I could enumerate the litany of problems with our culture, but they all boil down to one thing: We aren't nice. I like being nice, and I find that these parts of Wikipedia make me less nice, and so I will stop engaging with them.

You arrived at the Night Watch's RfA with absolutely nobody saying they were a bad person. Quite the opposite.

But you were the first opposer, bringing up a six month old comment, that made it sound like him telling you that sarcasm is unproductive is akin to victim blaming. Nobody else raised any other issues.

It became all about that one incident. They were cast as a tone policer, when in reality policy supports their view of the tone you used, just not necessarily how they raised it, in the glare of an RfA. But they weren't an Admin then. He could be forgiven this mistake by someone who was. Evidently not.

As the oppsoers rolled in, following your lead, you clearly triggered some sort of crisis in them. All because he was stupid enough to look up to you. He passed RfA, but will forever be known as that guy who lost his mind during his RfA. He finished with similar percentage to you. No, he did better than you did.

Nice would have been to say something at the time or a few days later. Or forever hold your peace.

Wikipedia does indeed need more nice Admins.

Is Tamzin there in the room with you now, Crowken? If you have something to say directly to her, you know you can just send a PM instead of having these fantasy conversations, right?

Is that any less "direct" than referring to them in the first person on a forum they are a member of, in a thread that is about them? Fantasy indeed. They are here. They are real. As am I.

I have no wish to force upon them my unsolicited views of their comings and goings on Wikipedia by entering their private domain. That would just be....rude.

[Elinruby]

Say about her what you will, she certainly isn't boring.

This

If you wanna talk like a fucking Redditor, we'll send you to /r/adviceanimals school.

Oh shit my bad

Does that meet with your approval??

[Pelican]

Say about her what you will, she certainly isn't boring.

This

If you wanna talk like a fucking Redditor, we'll send you to /r/adviceanimals school.

Oh shit my bad

Does that meet with your approval??

It does, though my approval isn't that hard to come by. For the record, though, I was paraphrasing the late great Richie Aprile - may he rest in peace.

[nableezy]

Solid admin IMO, very smart and meticulous when it came to SPI, but if something is draining your peace then run tf away from it. Hope they find WP a happier place without having to deal with at least some of the bs.

[Elinruby]

Props to her for initiating a review of Lourdes' blocks

[Elinruby]

Say about her what you will, she certainly isn't boring.

This

If you wanna talk like a fucking Redditor, we'll send you to /r/adviceanimals school.

Oh shit my bad

Does that meet with your approval??

It does, though my approval isn't that hard to come by. For the record, though, I was paraphrasing the late great Richie Aprile - may he rest in peace.

Missed a cultural reference did I?

[C&B]

Props to her for initiating a review of Lourdes' blocks

That was only to continue the drama around Lourdes. Tamzin was obviously disappointed she hadn't had the drop on Brox and needed to exhaust the material before everyone forgot it. Which they did anyway, it overturned very few of her blocks.

[Elinruby]

Props to her for initiating a review of Lourdes' blocks

That was only to continue the drama around Lourdes. Tamzin was obviously disappointed she hadn't had the drop on Brox and needed to exhaust the material before everyone forgot it. Which they did anyway, it overturned very few of her blocks.

I did notice that

[Giraffe Stapler]

Is Tamzin there in the room with you now, Crowken? If you have something to say directly to her, you know you can just send a PM instead of having these fantasy conversations, right?

Is that any less "direct" than referring to them in the first person on a forum they are a member of, in a thread that is about them?

Yes. It is less direct. Obvs.

I have no wish to force upon them my unsolicited views of their comings and goings on Wikipedia by entering their private domain. That would just be....rude.

You want to everyone to see what you have to say to Tamzin so you can feel clever, but you don't actually want to say it to Tamzin one-on-one. I can't blame you for being scared of her. I would be too if I were you.

[Mojito]

It is sad to see Tamzin hang up the tools, they did a good job. But it's completely understandable, mental health must come first.

[Randy from Boise]

Is Tamzin there in the room with you now, Crowken?

"Crowken," I like that!

Tamzin sort of disappoints not with the utterly predictable timing of this huff and puff but with the comparative lack of hysterical ultradrama...

Drama God Demands More!!!

I'm sure there's time for a very dramatic reversal!!! Exclamation points!!!

t

[Randy from Boise]

Say about her what you will, she certainly isn't boring.

This

If you wanna talk like a fucking Redditor, we'll send you to /r/adviceanimals school.

Oh shit my bad

Does that meet with your approval??

+1

t

[Skeptic Wikipedian]

I am of the opinion that she should NOT have been confirmed to begin with. None of my comments that follow criticize her as a person by the way, as I am in no place to judge others.

In any case, I was extremely concerned when she was confirmed, and remain so, simply because of the way Wikipedia as a whole has become. The site reeks of partisanship and anyone who dares speak out against the establishment can expect an oppose like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1204341486

Editors and admins alike need to tone down the arrogance and learn some humility. This is a hobby after all.

[pib]

I am of the opinion that she should NOT have been confirmed to begin with. None of my comments that follow criticize her as a person by the way, as I am in no place to judge others.

In any case, I was extremely concerned when she was confirmed, and remain so, simply because of the way Wikipedia as a whole has become. The site reeks of partisanship and anyone who dares speak out against the establishment can expect an oppose like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1204341486

Editors and admins alike need to tone down the arrogance and learn some humility. This is a hobby after all.

I don’t get what was so “gross” about TNW’s mistake?

[Skeptic Wikipedian]

I've lost the stomach to be a part of this site's toxic back-room culture. I could enumerate the litany of problems with our culture, but they all boil down to one thing: We aren't nice. I like being nice, and I find that these parts of Wikipedia make me less nice, and so I will stop engaging with them.

You arrived at the Night Watch's RfA with absolutely nobody saying they were a bad person. Quite the opposite.

But you were the first opposer, bringing up a six month old comment, that made it sound like him telling you that sarcasm is unproductive is akin to victim blaming. Nobody else raised any other issues.

It became all about that one incident. They were cast as a tone policer, when in reality policy supports their view of the tone you used, just not necessarily how they raised it, in the glare of an RfA. But they weren't an Admin then. He could be forgiven this mistake by someone who was. Evidently not.

As the oppsoers rolled in, following your lead, you clearly triggered some sort of crisis in them. All because he was stupid enough to look up to you. He passed RfA, but will forever be known as that guy who lost his mind during his RfA. He finished with similar percentage to you. No, he did better than you did.

Nice would have been to say something at the time or a few days later. Or forever hold your peace.

Wikipedia does indeed need more nice Admins.

Very well said.

If one is going to criticize the splinter in their brother's eye, they must look at the log in their own eye firstly. Actions speak louder than the lamentations of a userpage or crats noticeboard post. Indeed not as "nice" as she wishes to see others be.

We all have our faults, but to corral oppose votes over a comment made months prior is nothing short of childish and, frankly, disgusting. At least comment matter-of-factly on TNW's quality of content, their standing as an editor, ANYTHING else relevant other than the literal thing that didn't end up mattering.

Once more, I am glad to not see them as an admin anymore. Hopefully ferret is next to go.

[redbaron]

Hopefully ferret is next to go.

Out of curiosity, why?

[Kraken]

I don’t get what was so “gross” about TNW’s mistake?

It was supposedly about how challenging the tone of a victim of a personal attack is effectively endorsing the attack or victim blaming. Thankfully this appears to have been a minority of a minority view, with most opposing based on how TNW reacted to Tamzin's reaction to TNW's reaction to Tamzin's comment six months previously.

Hopefully ferret is next to go.

Out of curiosity, why?

I'm guessing it's because he runs the Wikipedia Discord.

You want to everyone to see what you have to say to Tamzin so you can feel clever, but you don't actually want to say it to Tamzin one-on-one. I can't blame you for being scared of her. I would be too if I were you.

Well that's one view I guess.

I haven't had any PMs from you.....

[rnu]

I am of the opinion that she should NOT have been confirmed to begin with. None of my comments that follow criticize her as a person by the way, as I am in no place to judge others.

In any case, I was extremely concerned when she was confirmed, and remain so, simply because of the way Wikipedia as a whole has become. The site reeks of partisanship and anyone who dares speak out against the establishment can expect an oppose like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1204341486

Editors and admins alike need to tone down the arrogance and learn some humility. This is a hobby after all.

[rnu]

I am of the opinion that she should NOT have been confirmed to begin with. None of my comments that follow criticize her as a person by the way, as I am in no place to judge others.

In any case, I was extremely concerned when she was confirmed, and remain so, simply because of the way Wikipedia as a whole has become. The site reeks of partisanship and anyone who dares speak out against the establishment can expect an oppose like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1204341486

Editors and admins alike need to tone down the arrogance and learn some humility. This is a hobby after all.

I don’t get what was so “gross” about TNW’s mistake?

[ltbdl]

Hopefully ferret is next to go.

Out of curiosity, why?

"skeptic wikipedian" is sad that they got banned from the wikimedia discord by ferret

[Goodbye01]

I'm guessing it's because he runs the Wikipedia Discord.

Ferret is she/her.

[C&B]

Tellingly there has been no upswell of support on her talk page (a small section is open here), and from no big hitters or fellow admins. Neither any follow up at WP:BN.

[rnu]

Tellingly there has been no upswell of support on her talk page (a small section is open here), and from no big hitters or fellow admins.

Of course not. Tamzin committed the worst of all Wikipedia sins: suggesting that Wikipedia has problems.

[Vigilant]

Tellingly there has been no upswell of support on her talk page (a small section is open here), and from no big hitters or fellow admins. Neither any follow up at WP:BN.

I'm Open

You hit the nail on the head. If you need anything from me or want to talk, I'll be there. The Night Watch (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

[utbc]

Tellingly there has been no upswell of support on her talk page (a small section is open here), and from no big hitters or fellow admins.

Of course not. Tamzin committed the worst of all Wikipedia sins: suggesting that Wikipedia has problems.

People may think the BN note was a general statement, but people may also think she's saying everyone who opposed Vami is devil incarnate, which would be quite specific a list of many names, who, it's safe to assume, happen to be mourning Vami just the same. People might then reason that she's in essence pretending as though she's never opposed an RFA or been mean to a candidate. People may then decide not to say anything bad at this time because they have the good sense, and for the same reason, be disinclined to say anything good either.

[rnu]

Tellingly there has been no upswell of support on her talk page (a small section is open here), and from no big hitters or fellow admins.

Of course not. Tamzin committed the worst of all Wikipedia sins: suggesting that Wikipedia has problems.

People may think the BN note was a general statement, but people may also think she's saying everyone who opposed Vami is devil incarnate, which would be quite specific a list of many names, who, it's safe to assume, happen to be mourning Vami just the same. People might then reason that she's in essence pretending as though she's never opposed an RFA or been mean to a candidate. People may then decide not to say anything bad at this time because they have the good sense, and for the same reason, be disinclined to say anything good either.

Ah yes. The standard Wikipedia practice of assuming that everyone else is a narcissistic sociopath, too.
And of course any criticism of Wikipedia is self-serving, hypocritical and dishonest. Because the alternative is that Wikipedia has problems. And that can't possibly be true.

[Skeptic Wikipedian]

Hopefully ferret is next to go.

Out of curiosity, why?

"skeptic wikipedian" is sad that they got banned from the wikimedia discord by ferret

And you'd be wrong. I've had the misfortune of interacting with them on-wiki and on the Discord--where I am still very much a member--and she shows the same arrogance and inability to be more understanding (especially with newer editors). She's also apparently a parent which is quite a terrifying thought. There are other people besides her who run that place, y'know.

[Skeptic Wikipedian]

Tellingly there has been no upswell of support on her talk page (a small section is open here), and from no big hitters or fellow admins. Neither any follow up at WP:BN.

I'm Open

You hit the nail on the head. If you need anything from me or want to talk, I'll be there. The Night Watch (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

More than anything, this is a testament to TNW's maturity and great humility. Wishing the person who almost sunk your RfA over nothing a farewell and an ear to hear is very difficult to do. All the more reason why TNW belongs as an admin and she doesn't.

[MrErnie]

Tamzin just blanked Vami IV’s rfa. That was a bad one, and a sign of why Wikipedia would be losing credibility.

[gentlegnome]

Tamzin just blanked Vami IV’s rfa. That was a bad one, and a sign of why Wikipedia would be losing credibility.

What point would there be in keeping it around? It's not like he's going to run again.

[MrErnie]

I think it was a good move.

[Randy from Boise]

Tellingly there has been no upswell of support on her talk page (a small section is open here), and from no big hitters or fellow admins.

Of course not. Tamzin committed the worst of all Wikipedia sins: suggesting that Wikipedia has problems.

I don't think that is a particularly revolutionary point of view.

t

[Vigilant]

I think it was a good move.

Is it likely anyone was going to visit it or edit it?

[C&B]

this is a testament to TNW's maturity and great humility.