It's hard to say goodbye to a community that I have been a part of for seven years. During my time as a contributor to Wikipedia, I have grown tremendously as a writer, and have added in many ways, large and small, to countless numbers of articles, and have participated in countless numbers of discussions. However, I have come to realize within the past year that I have reached both the limits of what I can accomplish within the Wikipedia community, and also the limits of my patience in interacting with other members of the Wikipedia community. Thus I feel that it is time for me to move on.
While I still believe in Wikipedia's mission to amass the sum of all human knowledge, I fear that the project may fail because the community will, over time, destroy itself due to what I perceive as constant infighting, the holding of long-term grudges by many users, and general rudeness and incivility on the part of many, which has an alienating effect on other users, both new and seasoned. As an administrator, I received more abuse than I would ever wish on anyone that is doing volunteer work, and this often extended beyond Wikipedia to my website, my Facebook, my Twitter, and my personal email, despite my best efforts to direct all Wikipedia-related inquiries back to Wikipedia. Because of this, I was never really able to escape from Wikipedia, even when using it for research, and it took a toll on me, turning what might otherwise have been an enjoyable activity into a chore, causing me to dread seeing the orange "You have new messages" bar come up, because it inevitably meant having to listen to more whining.
I soon found it increasingly difficult for me to justify to myself why I was still doing volunteer work for a project that I no longer found enjoyable. When I logged out of Wikipedia by choice and left it logged out, I soon came to realize that by not participating in Wikipedia, my stress levels went down, and I generally found myself to be much happier.
I believe that my best days are still ahead of me, but now it is time for me to forge my own path, endeavoring in new works and projects separate from those of the Wikipedia community. I wish all of you the best in your future endeavors, and perhaps our paths will cross again some day. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Invicta Watch Group article
Hi Ben. Might you have a look at this? User_talk:Yankees76#IWG regarding the Invicta Watch Group article. Please advise. Thanks and Bests. -- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk)
- I'm inclined to say it's probably best to let this one go. The two forum links don't have anything that indicates where the original poster got their information (thus no trail to a reliable source), and the third link doesn't really add anything to the article that we can eventually cite. You're right in your assessment of further reading sections in articles (I consider them a place for materials that want to be inline citations "when they grow up"), but these aren't those, unfortunately. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ben, for having a look and giving your take on it. The material in the forums on watchuseek gave information which was hard to get otherwise. Also, I wasn't creating a "link farm" as the Yankees76 editor opined in a vacuum. But, I'll let it go. Thanks again. Best. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 05:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Ben. Unfortunately, User:Yankees76 has had a very bad reaction to this matter. I'm sorry for this. But I don't think such a reaction is called for or is the tone of his remarks, including threats. See the now-frozen editor's talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yankees76&oldid=525142752 telling me to "go away" and "not post on his talk page again". By now, it's a forgettable if not regrettable incident. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oh sorry, the full response is actually this link.[1] Wikiklrsc if you're going to continue this and fabricate to your administrative handler how I made "threats" to you, you should probably link the full response. Either way I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with this (your links are not going back on the article, and I'm not going to get blocked for my response to you on my talk page), so posting here and continuing this little show that you've got going on, even after I called you out for doing so (my "bad reaction"), does not show alot of integrity on your part. --Yankees76 Talk 18:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Ben. Unfortunately, User:Yankees76 has had a very bad reaction to this matter. I'm sorry for this. But I don't think such a reaction is called for or is the tone of his remarks, including threats. See the now-frozen editor's talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yankees76&oldid=525142752 telling me to "go away" and "not post on his talk page again". By now, it's a forgettable if not regrettable incident. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 02:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Just to let you know
You deletions are being discussed here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#Admins_closing_as_Delete_even_when_the_deletion_discussion_has_a_clear_Keep_consensus.3F Ottawahitech (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Other discussions, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive242#Admin smoke signals needed. I would strongly recommend you do not revert this notice, but state your side of the story on WP:AN as soon as possible, so this can all be dealt quickly and we can move on. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Apparently this has brought every person with whom I've ever disagreed in nearly eight years here out of the woodwork. All I need is for Alkivar to come back and we've got it all. Otherwise, I'm very close to just being done with Wikipedia entirely, since I've been finding myself questioning why I'm still here at all, considering all of the hostility I get here. Bottom line is that Wikipedia isn't enjoyable for me anymore, and so I don't have the inclination or desire to respond to these people clamoring for my head for trying to enforce policy and process. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- I did not intend hostility toward you, only wanted accountability for the action you took. The fact that discussion is sorta exploding indicates that there's a community which gives a damn, not just about their precious tv shows, but about process, and discussion, and blah blah blah. If nobody cared, I would have gotten one or two "shaddaps" and that's it. --Lexein (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- What Lexein said. The problem here is policy and process - specifically that you have failed to justify your admin actions, as policy (and process!) requires you to do. If that's not a policy or process you're interested in following I'd suggest you hand in the tools. Ironholds (talk) 05:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- I did not intend hostility toward you, only wanted accountability for the action you took. The fact that discussion is sorta exploding indicates that there's a community which gives a damn, not just about their precious tv shows, but about process, and discussion, and blah blah blah. If nobody cared, I would have gotten one or two "shaddaps" and that's it. --Lexein (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- People disagree on the internet! It happens. That said, I don't particularly have any strong opinions against your actions, and indeed have said that when dealing with non-free images, I think it is good practice to err on the side of deletion. I also think just about everyone who's worked in an administrative capacity on a voluntary project gets burned out and wants to retire after a while. That said, as other people have pointed out, it's a Wikipedia policy that "Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools" and "Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions." So when people disagree with your actions, you must respond, even if it's just to restate or your assertion or disagreement with the other editor. You can always ask another admin to step in and being a neutral judge in your actions. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- SchuminWeb, if the above is going to be your "attitude" and your sole action/comment, then this is going to get ugly real quickly, which would be extremely unfortunate. There's more than one person who has a concern about a) your knowledge of the deletion policy, but more importantly b) your unwillingness to discuss/justify your use. Right now it has ended up on AN and oh look, you're unwilling to go there to discuss/justify it. Please don't inavertantly prove people right this easily. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- SchuminWeb, I can understand contributors feeling stressed or burned out, but admins absolutely must be prepared to account for their actions when questioned - we do not have the option of ignoring community concerns. I suggest you spend a little time calmly thinking about whether you want to remain as an admin, and if you are not prepared to account for your actions when asked, you should resign. As BWilkins suggests, if you refuse to do either, it's going to get ugly. And slightly longer term if you're feeling stressed out - maybe sort out this specific issue and then take a break? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- I would echo these comments. If you are fatigued, just say so, which you sort of did above in not so many words, take some time off, recharge the batteries and decide if you want back in the game or not. Good luck either way. --Malerooster (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited | |
---|---|
Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 04:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC) |
George_Washington_Carver_Senior_High_School
I noticed you made edits on this article some time ago. Could you please have a look at the discussion at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_Washington_Carver_Senior_High_School GroveGuy (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
RFC/U discussion concerning you (SchuminWeb)
Hello, SchuminWeb. Please be aware that a user conduct request for comment has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SchuminWeb, where you may want to participate. GiantSnowman 18:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
December 10 is Ada Lovelace's birthday! Not only was she the world's first computer programmer, but also the world's first female open source developer! Come celebrate with Wikimedia District of Columbia at Busboys & Poets for an informal get together!
The Washington, DC event will be held on Monday, December 10, 2012 at Busboys & Poets on 5th St NW & K St NW near Mt Vernon Square. The area is easily accessible by the Red Line Chinatown stop and the Yellow Line and Green Line Mt Vernon Square stop, as well as by WMATA buses.
Kirill [talk] 14:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
AN
My endorsement of your deletions is being discussed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Wikipedia:Deletion_review.2FLog.2F2012_November_25.23Improper_mass_deletion_review_.28closed.29 —Kww(talk) 22:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
about your name
Hello, SchuminWeb. Concerns have been raised that your username may be incompatible with policy. You can contribute to the discussion about it at the page for requests for comment on usernames. Alternatively, if you agree that your username may be problematic and are willing to change it, it is possible for you to keep your present contributions history under a new name. Simply request a new name at Wikipedia:Changing username following the guidelines on that page, rather than creating a whole new account. Thank you. Dream Focus 13:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Where were these concerns discussed? This looks like boilerplate template hit and run. --Lexein (talk) 13:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Burnout?
Are you feeling a bit burned out? I'd hate to see you blow your reputation here. Maybe it's time for a brief holiday from the old mop and bucket? This has worked for me in the past. Feel free to email me if you want to blow off steam or anything, I have been in the position of admin under fire before now and come back from it stronger and a better person. Well, I think so anyway. And Jimbo bought me a beer. Guy (Help!) 19:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikimedia DC Holiday Party and Wiki Loves Monuments Exhibition
Please join Wikimedia DC and four other local media nonprofits—the National Press Club's Young Members Committee, 100Reporters, IRE and the Fund for Investigative Journalism—in winding down another year with a night of well-mannered frivolity.
The festivities will take place on Friday evening from 6:30 PM to 9:00 PM in the Zenger Room on the 13th Floor of the National Press Club, located on 529 14th Street NW, near Metro Center. There will be meat and vegetarian appetizers as well as a cash bar with specially reduced drink prices all night long. In addition, we will be exhibiting the finalists of the Wiki Loves Monuments photo contest at the event.
Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 04:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Can you have this image temporarily undeleted? I would be curious myself about this image. --George Ho (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- I wonder if you can fix the bug; I can't see the image in the image page. --George Ho (talk) 05:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Arbitration case
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#SchuminWeb and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Mangoe (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Changes in the wording of "Non-free" templates
As far as I can tell, the changes to numerous "Non-free" templates you made on Novemeber 19 was not the result of a consensus discussion. Since these were your own Bold edits. I will be Reverting them as the next step in the WP:BRD process. Because of the large number of templates involved, I will be using rollback to do so. Please do not take this as an indication that I think these edits were vandalism -- I do not.
I cannot revert the edits you made to protected templates using your admin bit, so I have requested edits for them. If you see this, you might consider reverting them yourself. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hi SchuminWeb. I have rolled back the rest of the edits in question, and I also apologise for the generic edit summaries. I saw that Beyond My Ken had already reverted the vast majority of the edits when I was responding to his protected edit requests, and it seemed neater to have all the templates the same for the purposes of discussion. Please note that I don't have any particular opinion on the wording - I was just acting in response to the edit protected requests. If the consensus after discussion is to go with your version, then I will gladly self-revert all of them. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. If a consensus discussion decides that the wording you prefer is better, I have no problem with having my edits reverted, but I don't believe that such a significant change in the wording of multiple templates in this contentious area of Wikipedia should be make without discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)