User talk:Finalnight/Archive 4

Before you go
I said this: (Before I nominated) "You have to promise me that if it goes terribly wrong, you'll not quit Wikipedia. It's easy to say yes, but there have been some very good candidates that have been flamed out of RFA and quit Wik altogether. RFA hurts the ego big time, more than you realize it could."

You replied this: "Sure, I'll go for it. Don't worry, I won't quit if it fails, real life office politics make wiki-drama look like tea-time. Let me know what I need to get done"

I ask you to please reconsider your retirement (take a few days off if need be), but don't retire over an RFA. It was far worse than I could've possibly dreamed it could be, and I don't blame you or hold you in any less respect for leaving if you truly leave. You are a terrific editor and you got railroaded, and I feel awful about it. If I lived in Nebraska (you poor soul), I'd buy you a beer. Keeper   76  18:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to chime in and ask you to reconsider your retirement. RFA is extremely tough and it can really crush one's ego. I know how it is, I was unsuccessful twice before I was able to pass RFA. Your contributions are valued and I hope you don't stop contributing. Useight (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Luckily for you keeper, I logged back on one more time to switch to a more secure password to prevent my account from being hacked after I leave and noticed your message. I will give this final statement regarding why I am leaving:

Why I left
I first started editing Wikipedia back around 2003 anonymously. Over time, every month or so, I would wander in as I found information of note that I thought should be included. This picked up in 2007 and finally I decided to create an account at the end of 2007. I naturally like to share information and this is something that has made me successful in real life so Wikipedia was a good fit for me. In March I realized that a threat for the healthy sharing of information and the enjoyment of contributing to the project were vandals and I gladly took up the challenge of anti-vandalism combat. Through the explorations I embarked upon during my anti-vandalism activities I found that the community still had other needs to be addressed and started working on new-page patrols and articles for deletion. While a lot of my activities in these areas were around the removal of harmful/innappropriate additions to the project, I also tried to bolster new or challenged pages where I could while helping the occasional newbie along the way. To further that, I joined the ACC team and helped process applications for new accounts while preventing chronic vandals from gaining new accounts. When I was unexpectedly offered the opportunity to run for adminship, I saw it was a way for me to further my contributions to the community as outlined in my RfA.

Prior to that though, I encountered more and more of the Wikipedia space during my time on the project, I began to realize that the issue harming wikipedia the most were the self-destructive behaviors of many long-time members. One of the more hazardous issues I witnessed were blindly partisan actions based upon ideaology without regard to common sense, civility, or rationality. The corresponding/reactionary issue were editors blindly labeling everyone according to their perceived ideaology. Another major issue was that many contributors have lost grounding on what Wikipedia exists for and what their role was on Wikipedia. Instead of working together to create the best encyclopedia possible, it became more important to trade tit-for-tat exchanges, retain their grip on power/influence, sabotage their "enemies", socialize, game the system for their own advantage, or enforce their own version of "the truth" on those who disagreed. I managed to avoid the majority of these conflicts and did what I could to try to advocate for change in my work on changing ACC items and my commentary in the RfA review.

However, I began to realize that there really is no changing Wikipedia due to its very nature. The community will allow itself to be dominated by those who exhibit self-destructive behaviors (however subtle they may be) due to their effectiveness at their craft and will continue on due to the constant influx of new talent into the project which offsets much of these effects. Will it become more professional and collegial one day? Yes, it will, every new "thing" either grows up or fails in the long run. But, I don't have the desire to ride it out until then as I already have a strenous, happy, and very successful real life and have no need to stress out over pro-bono contributions of my time to a non-profit project.

The failure of my RfA was not the main reason for my departure, it was more of a "push to consensus" for my own internal !vote. I had been considering what the purpose of my continuing contributions to the project were when it started to became a source of stress rather than leisure for me. The actions I witnessed during my RfA showed that this is not a community that is appropriate for me to be apart of. I still believe in the wiki model and will be redirecting my energies to other wiki-based projects that I am a happy member of. I have completed an orderly withdrawal of what projects I was a part of and closed up any pending business. Best of luck to those continuing on.--Finalnight (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) If it's any consolation, I've had the same rigour. Requests for adminship/Rudget. I unfortunately didn't have the scenario where I could blame a nominator :) Humour aside, I really think you should re-evaluate the consequences this retirement may have on any future RfA. You're clearly vital to the functioning of the encyclopedia, and it would be sad to see this affect any future opportunities that may arise. I know you'll come back, most do. Just take this time to think what your priorities are. If they don't involve participating here, then don't bother. But once your here its rather hard to go without being forced, and at this particular time, I don't see a gun. Rudget   ( logs ) 19:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is unfortunate, but in the end; just do what makes you happy. If that's added some small bit of knowledge here and there as an anon, so be it. The comment I made in my support was not just a clever Star Trek quote, I really meant it - as I see you, like me, genuinely simply enjoy "helping people" and that's why I supported you. Hopefully you'll reconsider and continue in this regard. – xeno  ( talk ) 19:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Disappointed, but not surprised
I've been following (and participating in) RfAs for a short while now. It's becoming apparent to me that the quality of editor has little to do with passing RfA. I can not say that I blame Finalnight at all for simply giving up on things, as he was subjected to quite a lot of vitriol. It's disappointing, though, and makes me strongly reconsider nominating some people I've started to take a look at for RfA. I wouldn't put someone I didn't like through that mess. Sorry it went so poorly, Finalnight, and good luck in whatever you choose to do. S. Dean Jameson 20:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * After my first attempt at nomination went about as far south as Finalnight's did, I also decided against it. I felt so bad for my nom, who simply has a genuine desire to help the project. – xeno  ( talk ) 20:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I wrote this to help noms introduce their candidates.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 04:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Invitaton
Finalnight, I hope this is farewell rather than goodbye. If you choose to return (and I hope you do) I would consider it an honor to collaborate with you on a piece of featured content and eventually nominate your second RFA myself. Please contact me if you're interested. Respectfully, Durova Charge! 21:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, please don't go. If you go for RfA again, I will definitely support you. (I'd offer to co-nom, but I'm not good at that sort of thing....) Thingg &#8853; &#8855;  03:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I just happened upon your user account and saw your Rfa. Yeah, you got hosed it should not have happened. You definetely should have been nominated. Believe me when I tell you: I feel horrible about this and if I could without getting kicked off, I would create 80 accounts to cast votes for you. Best of luck and I hope you come back. I think I'll make a special section just for you on my user page. Farewell.  Meis funny  Gab 20:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Hello Finalnight. Thank you for your note.

I noticed that you've decided to leave Wikipedia. The RfA process is flawed. If you make one mistake, that mistake will be highlighted, exaggerated, and "RfA experts" will try to show why you cannot be "trusted". I think you should come back and apply again after three months. I will support your next RfA. Regards, Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 08:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-admin closure of AfDs
I have some concerns over some of the non-admin closures to AfDs you have made. As you are declared retired I presume this will not be seen but if you are still monitoring this page you may want to look at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Ros0709 (talk) 13:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I responded at your talk page.--Finalnight (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)