On 4/15/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/15/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
the effect of this is that when they do get involved they tend to cause trouble with the hyper-actives and thus reduce their work rate.
{{fact}} again.
See [[WP:AN]] and [[WP:AN/I]]'s archives.
I'd say this fails to be specific. Also, all you can prove here is that such issues have occurred - not that they are prevalent. Assessing something by only number of failures without taking into account total number of actions is an invalid metric. In other words - do less-active admins make more mistakes with the tools than more active ones, either per-admin or per-thousand-admin-actions or whatever?
I think you also fail to answer whether less active admins do sufficient good for the project by having the admin bit - I say that they do.
I'd also submit that the very active admins, in my opinion - they 'hyper-active' in your definition - are the ones headed for burnout, the ones likely to be giving insufficient time and consideration to each admin action, the ones most likely to be applying policy mechanistically rather than with judgment, and quite often the ones making a greater rate of errors.
The latter, I should qualify, not generally being 'misunderstanding the process' errors, but poor judgment, insufficient consideration, over-aggressive use of admin tools, biting the newbies, and basically acting like a killer adminbot on crack.
I think, Geni, that you over-consider the damaging effects of not understanding process, and under-consider the damaging effects of those other problems.
-Matt