User:Bdj/Why I left

Wikipedia issues, or why I left for a short time

Keep in mind that I wasn't planning a goodbye message, and just figured I'd blank most of it and sail off without much of a hitch, but I didn't want people to think that the final conflict I was in is the cause of this as much as the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. So, in no particular order:

1. The admin/editor divide is expanding, not improving. Kudos to User:Doc glasgow for some great articles recently, and a lot of people would benefit from examining his activity - he went from one of my least favorite admins to someone I've grown to like and respect, and it's been great to see that continue.
   1. Any project where someone like User:Giano is villified by the community because he's sick of the abuse of those allegedly "trusted" to run the show is not one that's pleasant to be in, and makes my editing experiences here almost a chore. Someone can pull rank and force his beliefs and get praise for it, and the person who dares protest is sneered at and disrespected.
2. The leadership no longer seems to understand what's useful in creating the best possible encyclopedia. Sometimes it's little things, like blacklisting specific blog URLs or appending nofollow to any links that won't make money for people associated with the Foundation. Lately, though, it's bigger things - WP:BLP, in particular, which is acting exactly as I expected it to. Instead of being a protection against egregious unsourced negative material, it's now being used as a brickbat against sourced negative material, unsourced (but unquestioned) positive material, and seems to only want to expand further. I hardly edited in those areas anymore and felt the heat coming from it - that's never good.
   1. Along these same lines, it'd be awfully nice if the people who are the main proponents regarding this misguided policy would think to apply it in editor-to-editor relations. When you treat the subjects of the articles better than the people taking the time to write them, there's a problem.
3. Consensus no longer matters. People who are deemed important and "respected" get the say, and the rest of us can either toe the line or "leave and fork," as one person said in a quick moment of lucidity. That's a far cry from where we started, or the project I signed on for.
4. The project is no longer working toward achieving what it's capable of. For a short time, it looked like the inclusion/exclusion debate was finally dying out, but now it appears it's not only gotten worse, but is simply not going to result in anything useful. The Community At Large is unable to see the big picture, instead looking for small platitudes such as "respect." We're not Brittanica. We'll never be Brittanica. That's why this is was so great.
   1. Along those same lines, talk about stupidity - the lack of structure that this project enjoyed with 20 users and 2000 articles is long gone, so stop clinging to it. Or else you can't with a straight face get angry at people for not following your lead on a specific issue. You can't have it both ways.
5. I fear the day that my contributions (and there are many, as you can clearly see) will no longer be acceptable here. I await the day that Kroger Babb is AfD'd because the subject of the article isn't important enough in the field his article resides in. No, I'm not kidding.
6. I left because of the problem elements. It's sort of like saying that if something is bad, take the good out and leave the rest to get worse. Oddly enough, our fair use policy is a lot like that, and people need to stop being so goddamn paranoid.

The four or five of you in particular who are making this place worse per above and will make this project fail (and you know who you are - if you think it's you, it probably is), leave. Resign and leave. It's not like you're contributing anything of worth to the project anyway.

And furthermore...

...I left again following how the Brian Peppers deletion review was inappropritely handled by User:Samuel Blanning. When a corresponding RfC was pretty much repudiated by his buddies, I threw my hands up, and the Essjay scandal didn't help matters.

Wikipedia is broken. Perhaps beyond repair. Too many people who are irresponsible and untrustworthy are sitting in positions of power, too many toxic individuals are ruining the project, and we are too busy trying to make ourselves worse instead of better. So, everyone, you're on notice:

1. If you're abusing your administrative power, I will call you on it. If you continue to do so, I will work to get you removed from your position.
2. If possible, I will reverse any and all gross abuses of power.
3. I will be working harder than ever to make sure our guidelines and policies reflect what's best for the project. Not for me, not for you, not for Daniel Brandt.
4. If you are a toxic element, expect nothing from me. I will cooperate in project-space as much as possible, but I will likely revert you on sight if you take your bullshit here. You've been warned.
5. If you don't like what I've done, too damn bad. I'll be glad to admit when I'm wrong, but I won't be acting in a possibly controversial way without being almost 100% certain that I'm right.
6. Got a problem with it? That's nice.

I may not be up to the level of a Simon Pulsifer, but I'm fairly prolific and have a lot to offer that no one else seems to care about. I intend to continue that, and if you get in my way, you'll hear about it.

You've been warned. No more bullshit. I can't let something I love as much as Wikipedia rot from the inside without a fight.

Other issues

• WP:SNOW may be the worst thing to happen to Wikipedia. It tosses process for a crystal ball, ignoring any chance of uncovering information that may change a situation for the purpose of quick finishes. It's rude, divisive, and inflammatory, but has unfortunate desire to be kept around. Furthermore, if I notice something being closed or referenced via WP:SNOW, I will challenge you on it, up to and including taking it to another review venue. If I catch it, I will do it, period.

• This idea of stable articles is troublesome. It makes us into something less than what we're capable of.

• WP:PROD needs to be expanded.

• Speedy keep needs to be expanded. While it needs to be expanded, please don't violate the speedy keep guidelines in the meantime.

• We're mature enough as a community where we shouldn't have to ignore the rules if they bother us. Need to rely on IAR too much? Says a lot about you.

• I have been, and will continue, to refer to notability with "scare quotes." Until people understand that subjectivity is a horrible way to judge the worth of something and encourages voting, you have to start small.