Admin resignations

[Vigilant]

Isn't this the third arbitrator who's resigned thus far this year, after Coren and Hersfold?

I'd like to know if anyone can figure out the reason for NW's resignation. Did it just get too difficult for him in general, or was there a specific aspect of being an arbitrator that he had a problem with?

Maybe he woke up one day and thought to himself, "If I were spending these hours at work instead of wikipedia, I could move out of my mom's basement, like, next month."

[DanMurphy]

Now dropped to 625.

Clearly the absence of a WYSIWYG visual editor accounts for this drastic decline among the website's highly experienced editors.

Someone should update this graph:

[Mancunium]

Isn't this the third arbitrator who's resigned thus far this year, after Coren and Hersfold?

I'd like to know if anyone can figure out the reason for NW's resignation. Did it just get too difficult for him in general, or was there a specific aspect of being an arbitrator that he had a problem with?

Maybe he woke up one day and thought to himself, "If I were spending these hours at work instead of wikipedia, I could move out of my mom's basement, like, next month."

Unemployable bums who live in their moms' basements are what Wikipedia calls "time-rich", and they rule the free encyclopedia. Strangely, the well-known phrase "time-rich" has no WP article. There is just this: Money-rich,_time-poor (T-H-L).

[The Devil's Advocate]

Isn't this the third arbitrator who's resigned thus far this year, after Coren and Hersfold?

I'd like to know if anyone can figure out the reason for NW's resignation. Did it just get too difficult for him in general, or was there a specific aspect of being an arbitrator that he had a problem with?

He seems to be saying it is time constraints. Whether that is the whole story or not is another question.

[Vigilant]

Isn't this the third arbitrator who's resigned thus far this year, after Coren and Hersfold?

I'd like to know if anyone can figure out the reason for NW's resignation. Did it just get too difficult for him in general, or was there a specific aspect of being an arbitrator that he had a problem with?

He seems to be saying it is time constraints. Whether that is the whole story or not is another question.

One minute you're fine and the next you have absolutely zero time?

Seems a bit fishy.

[dogbiscuit]

Isn't this the third arbitrator who's resigned thus far this year, after Coren and Hersfold?

I'd like to know if anyone can figure out the reason for NW's resignation. Did it just get too difficult for him in general, or was there a specific aspect of being an arbitrator that he had a problem with?

He seems to be saying it is time constraints. Whether that is the whole story or not is another question.

To be pedantic, I'd say it as the same question.

[Captain Occam]

One minute you're fine and the next you have absolutely zero time?

Seems a bit fishy.

If I recall correctly, the prevailing theory about the reason for Coren's and Hersfold's resignations was that it's because they objected to a decision ArbCom made about Malleus. Have there been any recent ArbCom decisions that NuclearWarfare is likely to have taken major issue with?

[Vigilant]

There's the requisite wailing and rending of clothes on the talk page.

During the Manning Naming case, I've been less than impressed.
NW seemed to be siding with some of Kirill's MORE insane points.

We can only hope Kirill resigns next.

[Randy from Boise]

There's the requisite wailing and rending of clothes on the talk page.

During the Manning Naming case, I've been less than impressed.
NW seemed to be siding with some of Kirill's MORE insane points.

We can only hope Kirill resigns next.

Yeah, after we give demerits to the Six International SuperGeniuses who took the case in the first place, Kirill and NW get additional black marks for their one-sided orientation in the analysis and proposed remedies — attempting to burn Simpletons Behaving Badly while utterly whitewashing the wheel-warring and tool abuse of Gerard and the inflammatory attacks of the disruptive POV warriors on the other side of the aisle...

Nuclear warriors for Official House POV, clearly...


RfB

[Poetlister]

One minute you're fine and the next you have absolutely zero time?

Seems a bit fishy.

No, I'd guess that the pressure has been building and building, and finally he snapped. Maybe if he wanted to, he could have chucked Arbcom and kept the CU work, but due to the strain he decided that it was easier to dump the whole lot at once.

[Mason]

Being a checkuser might have its moments, but nothing about the job descriptions of oversighter or arbitrator sound in any way like a pleasant way to spend one's time. Just idle speculation, but perhaps he woke up one morning and thought, "Why am I doing this? Practically anything would be more enjoyable."

[DanMurphy]

Some interesting tables on Wales' talkpage right now (have no idea how to reproduce them here) showing the monthly admin promotions and resignations since the website went live. These are the annual counts.

Admin promotions
2002 - 44
2003 - 123
2004- 240
2005 - 387
2006 - 353
2007 - 408
2008 - 201
2009 - 121
2010 -75
2011 - 52
2012 - 28
2013 (through September) - 28

Admin demotions ("desysoping"):
2003 - 4
2004 - 11
2005 - 11
2006 - 27
2007 - 34
2008 - 28
2009 - 39
2010 - 21
2011 - 278
2012 - 107
2013 (through September) - 65

[Scott5114]

What caused the desysop spike in 2011? New activity requirement policy for admins?

[Vigilant]

What caused the desysop spike in 2011? New activity requirement policy for admins?

I'd like to hope it was enforcement of WP:DICK, but I know that to be false.

[DanMurphy]

What caused the desysop spike in 2011? New activity requirement policy for admins?

Correct.

[Randy from Boise]

Some interesting tables on Wales' talkpage right now (have no idea how to reproduce them here) showing the monthly admin promotions and resignations since the website went live. These are the annual counts.

Admin promotions
2002 - 44
2003 - 123
2004- 240
2005 - 387
2006 - 353
2007 - 408
2008 - 201
2009 - 121
2010 -75
2011 - 52
2012 - 28
2013 (through September) - 28

Admin demotions ("desysoping"):
2003 - 4
2004 - 11
2005 - 11
2006 - 27
2007 - 34
2008 - 28
2009 - 39
2010 - 21
2011 - 278
2012 - 107
2013 (through September) - 65

This is a demographic question. There was a boom, a fad, for WP editing c. 2005. The criteria for Adminship was low, virtually automatic. There was a huge wave of people given the tools. Then over the next half decade this little demographic group of early 20-somethings grew up, left college, got families and jobs, and drifted away.

In the meantime, the original concept that "Adminship is No Big Deal" was sunk. Gaining "the buttons" became a big deal, a matter of running the gauntlet, running for office, dropping trou for the proctologist. The number of people sufficiently qualified and willing to submit to this more onerous process is comparatively small — not sufficient to replace the attrition of those Admins leaving the project through the natural aging process.

Now here is the big question: is this even a problem? Does there need to be 2000 Administrators? Would 200 or 20 suffice?

RfB

[EricBarbour]

This is a demographic question. There was a boom, a fad, for WP editing c. 2005. The criteria for Adminship was low, virtually automatic. There was a huge wave of people given the tools. Then over the next half decade this little demographic group of early 20-somethings grew up, left college, got families and jobs, and drifted away.

Correct. And the little society they left behind was totally insane.

In the meantime, the original concept that "Adminship is No Big Deal" was sunk. Gaining "the buttons" became a big deal, a matter of running the gauntlet, running for office, dropping trou for the proctologist. The number of people sufficiently qualified and willing to submit to this more onerous process is comparatively small — not sufficient to replace the attrition of those Admins leaving the project through the natural aging process.

Because of the insane society they made. In 2007 vandalism patrollers became "more important" than content writers or others, and that was the death knell.

Now here is the big question: is this even a problem? Does there need to be 2000 Administrators? Would 20 suffice?

Yes, if the little society wasn't insane. This late in the game, it will probably not be reformed unless all (ALL) of the existing controllers are pushed out.

[Randy from Boise]

This is a demographic question. There was a boom, a fad, for WP editing c. 2005. The criteria for Adminship was low, virtually automatic. There was a huge wave of people given the tools. Then over the next half decade this little demographic group of early 20-somethings grew up, left college, got families and jobs, and drifted away.

Correct. And the little society they left behind was totally insane.

In the meantime, the original concept that "Adminship is No Big Deal" was sunk. Gaining "the buttons" became a big deal, a matter of running the gauntlet, running for office, dropping trou for the proctologist. The number of people sufficiently qualified and willing to submit to this more onerous process is comparatively small — not sufficient to replace the attrition of those Admins leaving the project through the natural aging process.

Because of the insane society they made. In 2007 vandalism patrollers became "more important" than content writers or others, and that was the death knell.

Now here is the big question: is this even a problem? Does there need to be 2000 Administrators? Would 20 suffice?

Yes, if the little society wasn't insane. This late in the game, it will probably not be reformed unless all (ALL) of the existing controllers are pushed out.

You and I differ as to whether the "little society" is "insane."

I think it is perfectly sane, albeit not perfectly rational.

There is extreme order with the deletion process once a topic makes it to AfD. I have no doubt that there are dubious speedy deletions made. I run into them every now and then — clearly encyclopedic topics, things that meet inclusion standards, that get axed. Usually, as nearly as I can tell, these are bad efforts — insufficiently documented, hastily and poorly written glosses. Still: their getting axed is a violation of the principles of the encyclopedia — which may be summarized as "preserve and improve."

The periodic lynch mobs at Administrative Noticeboard/Incidents are sometimes dysfunctional but frequently are meritorious. Problem actors are eliminated.

A huge problem with WP is its systemic disrespect for expertise and its inability to bring aboard topical experts as content writers. That is not a manifestation of "insanity" though, it's a matter of the triumph of the Cult of Anonymity over the Cult of the Expert. There's a middle ground that needs to be found.

The decision-making process, the convoluted anarcholiberal pseudo-concensus-decisionmaking-process hokey-pokey of RFC, is clearly defective. It's a supermajority process which fosters clique rule and inertia. But even this is not "insane" — rather it is the misguided product of Jimmy Wales's original sin of distrusting majority-rule democracy.

Problems, sure — but comprehensible problems. Not irrational crazyland matters...

RfB

[EricBarbour]

Does anyone remember this chart, which I posted last year and prepared from "official" figures?


I followed it with this chart, from my own examination of activity of admins.


Okay, I've just taken those figures from Jimbo's talkpage, and made a comparable chart.


The first chart doesn't agree with the others, because Wikipedia has been tracking only admin "resignations".
In short, they were posting inadequate information. Then they started forcing retirements, and guess what, a whole
raft of administrators lost the bit -- because they had already given up. And didn't tell anyone.

And just for information, most of those retired admins were content writers.
The ones who are still active, and not desysopped, are primarily gnomes, patrollers, and cranks.
("Cranks" meaning "Facebookers" and assorted non-contributors.)

[Randy from Boise]

Okay, I've just taken those figures from Jimbo's talkpage, and made a comparable chart.


The first chart doesn't agree with the others, because Wikipedia has been tracking only admin "resignations".
In short, they were posting inadequate information. Then they started forcing retirements, and guess what, a whole
raft of administrators lost the bit -- because they had already given up. And didn't tell anyone.

And just for information, most of those retired admins were content writers.
The ones who are still active, and not desysopped, are primarily gnomes, patrollers, and cranks.
("Cranks" meaning "Facebookers" and assorted non-contributors.)

There is definitely a problem with the attrition rate of content writers, whether they came on board in 2005 and got the bit or whether they came on later and did not. Content writing can be arduous.

The thing that is missed, maybe, is the fact that most articles are one-off creations of individuals with a specific interest. The hardcore content writers very slowly, very steadily, flesh out the "real" encyclopedia — but the reality of Wikipedia is that it is primarily a compendium of popular culture with a constantly-refreshing cast. The "real" encyclopedia behind this pop culture compendium is steadily growing and improving, but the attrition of writers there (probably a natural process as the encyclopedia "fills up" and new additions become more specialized) has little to do with the forward march of the project as a whole.

There is absolutely no doubt that WP content writing has plateaued. A proper WYSIWYG editor would help pave the way for an advance, but at this point I'm starting to doubt that is in the cards. Still, it just takes a daily visit to the New Articles queue <link> to understand that WP is not dead or dying. It is evolving.

RfB

[EricBarbour]

but the reality of Wikipedia is that it is primarily a compendium of popular culture with a constantly-refreshing cast.

Then they should fucking label it as such, so that users understand they are not getting a "regular encyclopedia".

[Randy from Boise]

but the reality of Wikipedia is that it is primarily a compendium of popular culture with a constantly-refreshing cast.

Then they should fucking label it as such, so that users understand they are not getting a "regular encyclopedia".

It's both things. The "real" encyclopedia is also there.

RfB

[Hex]

Some interesting tables on Wales' talkpage right now (have no idea how to reproduce them here) showing the monthly admin promotions and resignations since the website went live.

User:WereSpielChequers/RFA by month (T-H-L), Wikipedia:Desysoppings by month (T-H-L) (I made that one, whee).

Okay, I've just taken those figures from Jimbo's talkpage, and made a comparable chart.

Thanks for that, Eric. Any chance you could plot the total number of admins on it as well?

[EricBarbour]

Thanks for that, Eric. Any chance you could plot the total number of admins on it as well?

Sure, but which figures should I use? Which ones can we trust?

[Peter Damian]

Now dropped to 613. It has its up and downs, of course. But down at the moment.

Someone should update this graph:

Yes.

[Kumioko]

I would also like to add 2 additional notes to that.

First, by June they will have fallen below 1400 total admins with an additional very large chunk in June through August unless they edit between now and then.

Second and more importantly, the qualifyer of being "active" if they did 30 edits in the past 2 months is extremely low. If that bar is raised to 100 in the past 2 months (which is still a pretty small number), there is a huge spike down to about 300 total active admins.

[enwikibadscience]

I would also like to add 2 additional notes to that.

First, by June they will have fallen below 1400 total admins with an additional very large chunk in June through August unless they edit between now and then.

Second and more importantly, the qualifyer of being "active" if they did 30 edits in the past 2 months is extremely low. If that bar is raised to 100 in the past 2 months (which is still a pretty small number), there is a huge spike down to about 300 total active admins.

If the qualifier were content edits, you would lose even more.

[Randy from Boise]

I would also like to add 2 additional notes to that.

First, by June they will have fallen below 1400 total admins with an additional very large chunk in June through August unless they edit between now and then.

Second and more importantly, the qualifyer of being "active" if they did 30 edits in the past 2 months is extremely low. If that bar is raised to 100 in the past 2 months (which is still a pretty small number), there is a huge spike down to about 300 total active admins.

If the qualifier were content edits, you would lose even more.

I don't think "content edits" has much to do with administrative tasks. I do think the benchmark of 30 edits in 2 months is extremely nominal. The number of "Very Active Administrators" with more than 100 edits per month would be an interesting one to know.

Something in the 200 to 300 range sounds about right. Does anyone know how to generate this stat?

Is that too few? Who knows...

RfB

[Kumioko]

That has been pulled a couple times in the past and its generally between 180 and 250 depending on time of the year. I would say judging but many of the lousy admins the site has and the lengthy backlogs I would say yes, that is too few. However, its also true that many admins only use their tools to harass other editors and win POV discussions or to support their favorite WikiProject or the articles they "own". Most of the admins on the site got hte tools as a popularity contest and most couldn't tell you how to use them. Even then, most of whats left only use one or 2 of the tools so the rest just go to waste.

[Poetlister]

If the qualifier were content edits, you would lose even more.

There are many useful things admins can do that would not qualify as content edits, such as blocking vandals, closing AfDs, deleting PRODs and voting against some of the candidates at RfA. On the other hand, pointless gnoming would appear to be content edits.

[Malleus]

If the qualifier were content edits, you would lose even more.

There are many useful things admins can do that would not qualify as content edits, such as blocking vandals, closing AfDs, deleting PRODs and voting against some of the candidates at RfA. On the other hand, pointless gnoming would appear to be content edits.

Take a look at the talk page of this admin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Epbr123. Anything strike you as a little weird?

[Poetlister]

Take a look at the talk page of this admin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Epbr123. Anything strike you as a little weird?

Evidently, being an admin who creates loads of content isn't necessarily a good thing.

[Hex]

Take a look at the talk page of this admin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Epbr123. Anything strike you as a little weird?

That guy sure loves porn.

Well, he's vanished; come six weeks from now he'll hit the one year inactivity mark and so won't be an admin any more.

[EricBarbour]

Take a look at the talk page of this admin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Epbr123. Anything strike you as a little weird?

That guy sure loves porn.
Well, he's vanished; come six weeks from now he'll hit the one year inactivity mark and so won't be an admin any more.

I looked at him 2 years ago: complete cipher, classic "evil patroller" and robot gnome who gets his rocks off eternabanning people for no reason, and did very little outside pornstar biographies. Probably from Herne Bay, if that means anything. The Finest Of Wikipedians!

[Peter Damian]

Found it. So, what happened to AGK (T-C-L)?

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

Found it. So, what happened to AGK (T-C-L)?

He seems to be taking c. one month off. He has stated that he is a student, so perhaps he is just trying to pass exams....

[tarantino]

Jayjg (T-C-L) made over 1000 edits between November 3 and 6, 2013 using AWB, then disappeared.

[Hex]

Take a look at the talk page of this admin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Epbr123. Anything strike you as a little weird?

That guy sure loves porn.

Well, he's vanished; come six weeks from now he'll hit the one year inactivity mark and so won't be an admin any more.

Just fancy that!

[everyking]

I thought it would be interesting to look at the list of recent resysoppings, which goes up to 15 and back to October 2013. What's interesting is that a large majority of the 15 are still more or less inactive. Amusingly, El C, who was resysopped back in October, has failed to make any edits at all since getting himself resysopped. It seems like most of these people didn't really intend to return to serious activity, or they got bored or frustrated after a very short time.

I've come to see the decline in admins as more a function of a general decline in participation, rather than the difficult RfA process. The solution would have to be to get broader participation in general, and then the admin problem would probably fix itself. A smaller admin population might actually help, if we see the goal as retraining admins to be welcoming ambassadors rather than ironfisted disciplinarians.

[greybeard]

Jayjg (T-C-L) made over 1000 edits between November 3 and 6, 2013 using AWB, then disappeared.

Jayjg became fond, late in his wiki-life, of disguising potentially-controversial edits by burying them in a blizzard of wiki-gnoming. Often within those 1000 or more edits that add or remove an apostrophe or correct a misspelling, Jayjg would bury an edit about one of his hidden agendas, because so many people followed his (pretty egregious) POV editing that he got tired of the short leash.

I don't know if he's really gone or just waiting for his infamy to die down. His POV is unlikely to go out of style (more's the pity). Does his incredibly-disciplined hiatus support the theory that he is a group account or cabal?

[EricBarbour]

Jayjg became fond, late in his wiki-life, of disguising potentially-controversial edits by burying them in a blizzard of wiki-gnoming. Often within those 1000 or more edits that add or remove an apostrophe or correct a misspelling, Jayjg would bury an edit about one of his hidden agendas, because so many people followed his (pretty egregious) POV editing that he got tired of the short leash.

I don't know if he's really gone or just waiting for his infamy to die down. His POV is unlikely to go out of style (more's the pity). Does his incredibly-disciplined hiatus support the theory that he is a group account or cabal?

The chances that he shared his account are pretty good. As for finding out what his motivations were, you'd have to ask him directly. (I know how to contact him, although he'll probably ignore you, and anyone else he doesn't see as a "ally". He is a "true-blue Wikipedian" in that he is completely paranoid and secretive, even though it no longer protects or serves him.)

[greybeard]

He [Jayjg] is a "true-blue Wikipedian" in that he is completely paranoid and secretive, even though it no longer protects or serves him.)

I don't want to quibble, but my definition of the "true-blue Wikipedians" are the ones who persist on Wikipedia despite their reputations and self-interest: people like NewYorkBrad. Jayjg was always solely involved for his own interests and point-of-view. He never did anything remotely supportive of Wikipedia that was not also sharply in his own interest.

[Cla68]

He [Jayjg] is a "true-blue Wikipedian" in that he is completely paranoid and secretive, even though it no longer protects or serves him.)

I don't want to quibble, but my definition of the "true-blue Wikipedians" are the ones who persist on Wikipedia despite their reputations and self-interest: people like NewYorkBrad. Jayjg was always solely involved for his own interests and point-of-view. He never did anything remotely supportive of Wikipedia that was not also sharply in his own interest.

Jayjg is a top 10 example of an agenda-driven editor who played the system as well as he could.

[HRIP7]

There are actually intelligent people among Wikipedians who believe in Wikipedia's educational mission, or the idea of a worldwide movement dedicated to making knowledge available freely. Charles Matthews (T-C-L) is one example that comes to mind; an unsung hero beavering away on biographies of 19th- and 18th-century composers, writers, artists, scientists and politicians.

It's a stance I respect, even though I might attach more significance to the project's flaws and failings, and take a more jaundiced view of its successes, than they would.

I guess it's correct that they, rather than the activists merely pretending to support Wikipedia's ideals, would be the true-blue Wikipedians. They rarely come up in our conversations here.

There is little wrong with Wikipedia's fundamental ideals, or people attracted by them; only with the reality of the implementation.

[Notvelty]

There are actually intelligent people among Wikipedians who believe in Wikipedia's educational mission, or the idea of a worldwide movement dedicated to making knowledge available freely.

I disagree. Intelligent people realise that this is impossible. Someone, somewhere pays. By providing information freely, the work of people who actually produce things is subborned by people who do not. Wikipedia is not only a prime example, Wikimedia is the perfect example.

Every missed plan when partying, every USB stick, every insider contract; every undeserved prorated cent that flows to the people of wikimedia is built off the sweat of the actual creators of knowledge. And, no, wikipedians are not "content creators", they are, at best, "content recyclers" and, at worst, "content stealers". They can't even claim to add value in to the availability of knowledge - that's Google.

That's the thing about free knowledge. At some point, other peoples' work runs out.

[Randy from Boise]

Every missed plan when partying, every USB stick, every insider contract; every undeserved prorated cent that flows to the people of wikimedia is built off the sweat of the actual creators of knowledge. And, no, wikipedians are not "content creators", they are, at best, "content recyclers" and, at worst, "content stealers".

Please enlighten us with your definition of "actual creator of knowledge".

Agreed that this is a patently silly perspective.

tim

[Streaky]

Amusingly, El C, who was resysopped back in October, has failed to make any edits at all since getting himself resysopped.

El C admitted that he only wanted admin access to view deleted content. Others I'm sure make their annual token edits for the same reason.

[Zoloft]

Off topic discussion on 'true content creators' moved here: link

[Hex]

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

Scott (T-C-L)

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

There are actually intelligent people among Wikipedians who believe in Wikipedia's educational mission, or the idea of a worldwide movement dedicated to making knowledge available freely. Charles Matthews (T-C-L) is one example that comes to mind; an unsung hero beavering away on biographies of 19th- and 18th-century composers, writers, artists, scientists and politicians.

It's a stance I respect, even though I might attach more significance to the project's flaws and failings, and take a more jaundiced view of its successes, than they would.

I guess it's correct that they, rather than the activists merely pretending to support Wikipedia's ideals, would be the true-blue Wikipedians. They rarely come up in our conversations here.

There is little wrong with Wikipedia's fundamental ideals, or people attracted by them; only with the reality of the implementation.