On 01/03/2008, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: That's hardly a helpful comment. -- Alex (Majorly) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Majorly

David Gerard wrote: Not to disagree with the conclusion, but why are they overworked? Do we not have enough of them?

David Gerard wrote: Those predisposed to self-righteousness expend a lot of energy becoming angry about others who never seem to understand or follow rules and are thus threats to the order of the universe. Ec

I would estimate more than that. The thing is, I was talking to Heimstern last night, and he said that when he tried to not do as much stuff as he used to, he felt a lot better. I think (and so does Heimstern) the reason some of those "wikipedians are people too" rules is because there is just too much stuff to do. A lot of people (me included) get too much stuff to do, until they get so overworked that they ignore some of the most important rules on Wikipedia. -Soxred93 On Mar 1, 2008, at 4:01 PM, geni wrote:

I'm not sure they are, but if they are then it's because not enough admins are helping out. That could just be that people get bored and move on (I think the rule of thumb for only communities is that people leave after about 18 months - considering we require editors to have been around for at least a few months before they become admins, that doesn't give them long) - that could be extenuated by them discovering that a mop isn't actually as interesting as they thought. The alternative is that admins are mistreated so much that they can't really be bothered any more.

On 01/03/2008, Kurt Maxwell Weber <kmw(a)armory.com> wrote: Take a look at WP:AN/I, plenty of admins doing their job well get complained about all the time. You do the slightest thing someone doesn't like, or isn't in exact adherence to policy and cries of "admin abuse" go up far and wide. Compare the number of complaints against admins to the number of desysoppings and you'll see that the vast majority of complaints are against admins just doing their jobs. Quite a lot of admins actions are going to upset someone (the person being blocked, the person that created the article that's being deleted, the person that happened not to have got the last word in the edit war before "the wrong version" was protected, etc., etc.). There are also plenty of times when policy doesn't apply word for word and it's necessary for admins to use their own judgement. Sure, sometimes that judgement is slightly flawed, but most of the time it's the right thing to do and most people agree with it, but it still gets complained about just because it didn't follow the exact letter of the law.

On Sunday 02 March 2008 08:04, Raphael Wegmann wrote: I've suggested something similar in the past: For their initial confirmation, administrators are required to reach a certain, objectively-defined and absolute threshold of votes (not a "discussion", not "consensus", but an outright vote), discounting SPAs, socks, and maybe a few others. A week after their confirmation process begins, if they meet that criteria they are admins. From then on out, they must maintain that support. A page is maintained for each administrator. It begins with the original confirmation request, and from that individual users may add or withdraw their support for that administrator as they see fit. Once a week, on the same day as the admin was initially confirmed, someone checks to see if they still meet that threshold. If they fall below the threshold for two consecutive weeks, they are de-adminned (requiring two consecutive weeks rather than just a single week helps give admins a chance to explain why they did what they did, in the event of a particularly controversial action that may nonetheless have been the best thing to do in a particular situation). -- Kurt Weber <kmw(a)armory.com>

On Sun, Mar 02, 2008 at 01:06:38PM -0600, Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote: This is a seriously bad idea. Being an admin has enough hassle without having to keep an eye on such a page. Also who is going to check 1000+ pages every week. We certainly would need more crats then and I do not see too many people offering themselves to just check these pages. At least you are not asking for a bot to de-admin me if I fall below the right score. Brian. -- Brian Salter-Duke b_duke(a)bigpond.net.au [[User:Bduke]] mainly on en:Wikipedia. Also on fr: Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki and Wikiversity

Admins are not servants, they are under-appreciated volunteers.

Strictly speaking, you're right, but interpreting the will of the community sometimes requires a bit of initiative. Interpreting the will of those involved in an issue is easy, but it's not always enough. To interpret the will of the community at large requires an understanding of why the community has the views it does so that you can apply those views to new situations - it's these new situations that generally result in cries of "admin abuse" (ignoring the "how is my company going to get any business now you've deleted our advert?!" complaints, which are far more numerous but far easier to ignore).

On Sunday 02 March 2008 18:21, David Gerard wrote: Excuse me? The last time I was blocked was October 31, and that one was clearly bullshit: as soon as people found out about it there was a massive outcry and it was overturned almost right away, with the support of >95% of the people who commented on it. Other than that, the last "real" block was in June of 2006, and that probably would have been overturned rather rapidly had I bothered to contest it, but I was going to be out of town for a week beginning about a day in the week-long block so I didn't worry about it. Before that was December 2005, which was essentially just one block, being removed and replaced for progressively shorter durations. Before that was in October of 2005. So I've only been legitimately and effectively blocked from Wikipedia twice, both within an approximately two-month period over two years ago. Please get your facts straight next time. -- Kurt Weber <kmw(a)armory.com>

Brian Salter-Duke wrote: Agree, that suggestion is a bit heavy. Even for this project. ./scream

On Sunday 02 March 2008 20:27, Chris Howie wrote: An RfA is only a big deal if you find yourself compelled to respond to every point made against you...in other words, it's only a big deal if being an administrator is an actual goal of yours--it's only a big deal if you *want* to be an administrator. Frankly, those are the people I don't think should be administrators. If you don't really care much if you're turned down, all you have to do is fill out your nomination statement and leave it alone. These are the people we need: people who don't necessarily *want* the job, but are willing to do it at the request of the community. Are you familiar with Cincinnatus? Or George Washington, for that matter? -- Kurt Weber <kmw(a)armory.com>

On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Kurt Maxwell Weber <kmw(a)armory.com> wrote: Time to initiate a recall against me then, eh? Seriously, this position is ridiculous. You are completely disregarding motivation. My basic motivation is to assist the Wikipedia community. My specific motivation is to be able to perform RC patrol more effectively, that is, I can monitor AIV as well as block vandals without having to report to AIV and check up on them until someone gets around to blocking. I do want to be an admin, but I'm not power-hungry or crazy (or I hope not). To my knowledge every time I have used the tools it has been in the best interests of the community. If not wanting to be an administrator is a negative mark then I suggest you are going to find Wikipedia with a bunch of admins who, as I understand you to mean, don't particularly want to be administrators. They are going to be much less willing to trawl through backlogs as people who want to be admins specifically to deal with the backlogs. Basically what I'm saying is that if someone *genuinely* wants to be an admin *so they can help out Wikipedia*, what's the problem? I seriously doubt the ability of such people to be able to put up with all the BS that administrators do. Though you may counter-argue that such administrators tend to not attract BS. However, I'd say that if all of the "want-to-be" administrators were desysopped then not only are we going to have a lack of manpower, but all of the complaints will shift to the "don't-want-to-be" administrators who may very well decide it's not worth it. I'm unsure what you're driving at here, and it seems to be a somewhat sneaky question. If I answer "no" in either case, is the reply going to be some sort of big "here, let me lecture you about them and why this is relevant" monologue? Therefore I decline to answer. If you have a point here, make it without my help. -- Chris Howie http://www.chrishowie.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazycomputers

Chris Howie wrote: I like the idea in principle. Nevertheless, I find the two-weeks details impractical. Surely there are other options when the person falls below the threshhold. The other thing that we can't know at this stage is how often people will fall below the threshold. It may very well be a very small number, unless someone gets on a campaign about absent admins. Of course of those are MIA after 52 weeks, they're just as likely to be MIA after 53 weeks. Even if we do nothing when they fall below the threshold, the page will still be there to show when an admin has dropped below a 25% community confidence level. And if the average community support level is at 25% then an individual 25% doesn't look so bad. Ec

On 01/03/2008, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: I think it is in the class of things best contemplated quietly rather than acted upon, really. But, hmm. What's a good way to approach an admin biting n00bs at a fantastic rate and edging to burnout? - d.

It gets mostly negative when they try to thing that it all depends on them, and if they dont make this particular deletion )or this particular save), nobody will ever catch it or fix it or restore it, WP will progressively go down hill without them, and the reputation will suffer irrevocably. WP does encourage obsession that way, in admin processes as well as writing. I',m back to my old hobby horse, but i think the first step in getting admins to accept responsibility is for them to all be identifiable human beings. I accept the need for anonymous contributiors; I do not accept the need for anonymous people in authority. On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 9:51 PM, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

on 3/2/08 7:58 AM, David Gerard at dgerard(a)gmail.com wrote: There have been countless hours of talk about the problems with admins, and about the problems they face. Has there been an organized, determined effort to actually do something about these problems? Marc Riddell

And answering your question in the subject line, thousands of people. All of us are volunteers, except for a very few employees. This allows a system of checks and balances with decision making, and also, like what Wikipedia is, more people to share their knowledge. -Soxred93 On Mar 1, 2008, at 9:24 AM, AGK wrote: