User:Steve Smith

Oh, you're back.

How kind of you to notice.

Why did you leave in the first place?

I told you.

A "variety of reasons", eh?

Yup.

Were they personal?

Not really.

School?

Obviously you've never been through the third year of law school.

Anyway, as long as you're here, would you mind commenting on...

Yes, as a matter of fact, I would mind.

You didn't let me finish.

It doesn't matter. Disputes on Wikipedia that reach the point where you start asking outside editors to comment on them are basically unresolveable without immense time and effort being invested, and often even then. That time and effort is, from my perspective, disproportionate to any benefit derived (especially given the very real chance of said benefit being non-existent). So yes, I would mind commenting.

So you're not a big believer in Wikipedia's dispute-resolution process?

In much the same way that law-and-order conservatives are not big believers in empiricism, no.

I didn't see you doing anything to fix it when you were on ArbCom.

That's because you weren't privy to my near-heroic behind-the-scenes efforts at reform.

Really?

No. I was about as useful as bull tits on ArbCom. But—and I mean this with the utmost respect to my former colleagues, the vast majority of whom are dedicated, highly intelligent, and harder-working than I ever was—that's more a reflection on ArbCom than it is on me. ArbCom can occasionally do some small good in some specific dispute, but is completely unequipped to address the underlying causes of disputes, and most other aspects of Wikipedia—in particular anonymous editing and an entrenched aversion to hierarchical structure—both counteract and dwarf any good that ArbCom can do.

So if you're so smart, what would you change?

No idea.

That's kind of a cop-out.

See my earlier comments about effort disproportionate to benefit.

Why are you even here, if you hate Wikipedia so much?

I don't think I hate Wikipedia. Even when I wasn't editing Wikipedia, I still used it fairly frequently. I enjoy reading its better articles. I enjoy the sort of secondary research involved in writing on Wikipedia. I enjoy editing prose—my own and others'. And I enjoy the thought that, on those rare occasions that somebody wants to learn about the 1937 Social Credit backbenchers' revolt without considering it worth spending money on and without having access to a library well-stocked in Alberta political history, I'm doing some small service. So, to answer your question, I'm here to indulge those enjoyments.

It's irresponsible for people like you to take that kind of hands-off attitude when content contributors are being constantly hounded by officious fourteen year-olds who contribute nothing of value.

I have no desire to work or be associated with the kinds of persecution-complexed prima donnas who believe that calling people "cunts" (or any other word intended solely to insult, whatever its level of offensiveness in any given culture) and the like is conducive to collaboration in any context. Here's a dirty little secret: it's really easy to contribute content to Wikipedia in non-contentious areas without getting harassed by officious fourteen year-olds. And if you think contributing content in contentious areas of Wikipedia is a good use of your time, you're too far gone to save.

So if you just want to do content, why are you still an admin?

Because I occasionally find it useful to block people who are vandalizing articles I'm working on, or to semi-protect said articles in the case of persistent vandalism.

That sounds like you're planning to wield admin tools for your own benefit, rather than that of the encyclopaedia.

Not at all. I intend for every administrative action I take to be scrupulously in keeping with Wikipedia's policies, such as they are. I just don't intend to take very many, and I certainly don't intend to seek any out.

Huh. Well, I guess I'll see you around.

Unless you're hanging around articles about Alberta's political history or the various review pages, you probably won't.