I am a National Team player for Canada Basketball. I noticed that Wikipedia did not contain any information about Canada Basketball. I attempted to create an entry but my posting keeps getting taken down.
Can anyone tell me why??
On 29/02/2008, cpstar85 cbmarketing2@basketball.ca wrote:
I am a National Team player for Canada Basketball. I noticed that Wikipedia did not contain any information about Canada Basketball. I attempted to create an entry but my posting keeps getting taken down.
Can anyone tell me why??
There will be a reason given in the deletion log. If you want clarification, ask the deleting admin on their talk page. Without knowing precisely which articles you're asking about, there's not at lot else I can say.
20:34, 1 February 2008 Beetstra (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Canada Basketball" (content was: '{{db-copyvio}} {{Articleissues |copyedit = January 2008 |tone = January 2008 |wikify = January 2008 }} {{Cleanup|date=February 2008}} {{COI|date=February 2008}} {{Unreferenced|date=February 2008}} '''Canada Basketball''' is the National ...') (restore)
The article we deleted by one our administrators, Beestra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Beetstra, because another editor had tagged it as a copyright violation from http://basketball.ca/en/hm/inside.php?sid=110&id=161.
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 2:27 PM, cpstar85 cbmarketing2@basketball.ca wrote:
I am a National Team player for Canada Basketball. I noticed that Wikipedia did not contain any information about Canada Basketball. I attempted to create an entry but my posting keeps getting taken down.
Can anyone tell me why??
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Who-monitors-Wikipedia--tp15765463p15765463.html Sent from the English Wikipedia mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Casey Brown wrote:
20:34, 1 February 2008 Beetstra (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Canada Basketball" (content was: '{{db-copyvio}} {{Articleissues |copyedit = January 2008 |tone = January 2008 |wikify = January 2008 }} {{Cleanup|date=February 2008}} {{COI|date=February 2008}} {{Unreferenced|date=February 2008}} '''Canada Basketball''' is the National ...') (restore)
The article we deleted by one our administrators, Beestra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Beetstra, because another editor had tagged it as a copyright violation from http://basketball.ca/en/hm/inside.php?sid=110&id=161.
If Beetstra had taken the time to look he would have seen this was from a newbie. Even if it is a copyvio he should first have tried to explain things on the newbie's talk page instead of shooting first.
In addition to barnstars, perhaps we should also have a system of barnturds for admins who act within the strict rules, but without paying attention to respect for those who are trying to contribute in good faith.
Ec
On 01/03/2008, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
In addition to barnstars, perhaps we should also have a system of barnturds for admins who act within the strict rules, but without paying attention to respect for those who are trying to contribute in good faith.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
That's hardly a helpful comment.
On 01/03/2008, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 01/03/2008, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
In addition to barnstars, perhaps we should also have a system of barnturds for admins who act within the strict rules, but without paying attention to respect for those who are trying to contribute in good faith.
That's hardly a helpful comment.
"Don't bite the newbies" is a painfully neglected rule, so I'm sure you can understand the frustration being expressed here. Overworked admins who think "must save the universe, bugger the newbies" are an ongoing public relations disaster.
- d.
On 01/03/2008, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Overworked admins who think "must save the universe, bugger the newbies" are an ongoing public relations disaster.
Not to disagree with the conclusion, but why are they overworked? Do we not have enough of them?
I think RFA preferencing natural-born burnout victims is a factor.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 01/03/2008, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Overworked admins who think "must save the universe, bugger the newbies" are an ongoing public relations disaster.
Not to disagree with the conclusion, but why are they overworked? Do we not have enough of them?
I think RFA preferencing natural-born burnout victims is a factor.
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
On 01/03/2008, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Overworked admins who think "must save the universe, bugger the newbies" are an ongoing public relations disaster.
Not to disagree with the conclusion, but why are they overworked? Do we not have enough of them?
The total number isn't relevant. Most admin work is done by a small number of very very active admins maybe about 10% of the total admins at any given time.
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:
On 01/03/2008, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Overworked admins who think "must save the universe, bugger the newbies" are an ongoing public relations disaster.
Not to disagree with the conclusion, but why are they overworked? Do we not have enough of them?
The total number isn't relevant. Most admin work is done by a small number of very very active admins maybe about 10% of the total admins at any given time.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
geni wrote:
On 01/03/2008, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Overworked admins who think "must save the universe, bugger the newbies" are an ongoing public relations disaster.
Not to disagree with the conclusion, but why are they overworked? Do we not have enough of them?
The total number isn't relevant. Most admin work is done by a small number of very very active admins maybe about 10% of the total admins at any given time.
My first question stands: why are they overworked?
The total number isn't relevant. Most admin work is done by a small number of very very active admins maybe about 10% of the total admins at any given time.
My first question stands: why are they overworked?
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 Saturday 01 March 2008 15:27, Thomas Dalton wrote:
The alternative is that admins are mistreated so much that they can't really be bothered any more.
They're not.
Those that do their job well, no one really even "knows" they're admins and it's a non-issue.
Those that get uppity and act like they're masters (rather than what they really are: servants) get treated like crap, sure, but they deserve it. It's not "mistreatment" if it's wholly deserved.
On 01/03/2008, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
On Saturday 01 March 2008 15:27, Thomas Dalton wrote:
The alternative is that admins are mistreated so much that they can't really be bothered any more.
They're not.
Those that do their job well, no one really even "knows" they're admins and it's a non-issue.
Those that get uppity and act like they're masters (rather than what they really are: servants) get treated like crap, sure, but they deserve it. It's not "mistreatment" if it's wholly deserved.
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.
Kurt Maxwell Weber schrieb:
On Saturday 01 March 2008 15:27, Thomas Dalton wrote:
The alternative is that admins are mistreated so much that they can't really be bothered any more.
They're not.
Those that do their job well, no one really even "knows" they're admins and it's a non-issue.
Those that get uppity and act like they're masters (rather than what they really are: servants) get treated like crap, sure, but they deserve it. It's not "mistreatment" if it's wholly deserved.
I share that view. IMHO there should be a mechanism to desysop those who act like they're masters. Since administrators should serve the community, they should not select their representatives for a lifetime. Instead those administrators who loose public support, should loose their administrative powers as well.
In order to avoid permanent elections, we could implement a system, in which every registered editor can choose his/her administrator. After some phase-in period, those administrators who loose all their supporting editors should loose their admin powers as well.
Lets face it. The current system is getting out of control. There is no public oversight whatsoever and admins are free to WP:IAR whenever they please.
On Sunday 02 March 2008 08:04, Raphael Wegmann wrote:
I share that view. IMHO there should be a mechanism to desysop those who act like they're masters. Since administrators should serve the community, they should not select their representatives for a lifetime. Instead those administrators who loose public support, should loose their administrative powers as well.
In order to avoid permanent elections, we could implement a system, in which every registered editor can choose his/her administrator. After some phase-in period, those administrators who loose all their supporting editors should loose their admin powers as well.
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 Maxwell Weber wrote:
On Sunday 02 March 2008 08:04, Raphael Wegmann wrote:
I share that view. IMHO there should be a mechanism to desysop those who act like they're masters. Since administrators should serve the community, they should not select their representatives for a lifetime. Instead those administrators who loose public support, should loose their administrative powers as well.
In order to avoid permanent elections, we could implement a system, in which every registered editor can choose his/her administrator. After some phase-in period, those administrators who loose all their supporting editors should loose their admin powers as well.
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).
I support the principle, even if I would approach the details differently. I have in the past raised something of the sort in relation to policy adoption in general.
Permanent elections or permanent votes are just fine. They more easily reflect changing times and attitudes without having to compete with the inertia that accompanies established decisions. A lot of the people who are most vexatious about the strict application of rules seem like the kind of people who like to decide on a rule and go on without ever having to reconsider the issue again.
Ec
On Sun, Mar 02, 2008 at 01:06:38PM -0600, Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
On Sunday 02 March 2008 08:04, Raphael Wegmann wrote:
I share that view. IMHO there should be a mechanism to desysop those who act like they're masters. Since administrators should serve the community, they should not select their representatives for a lifetime. Instead those administrators who loose public support, should loose their administrative powers as well.
In order to avoid permanent elections, we could implement a system, in which every registered editor can choose his/her administrator. After some phase-in period, those administrators who loose all their supporting editors should loose their admin powers as well.
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).
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.
-- Kurt Weber kmw@armory.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sunday 02 March 2008 16:45, Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
This is a seriously bad idea. Being an admin has enough hassle without having to keep an eye on such a page.
Why would the admin have to check his own page?
Besides, anything that makes more work for our servants isn't a bad thing.
Also who is going to check 1000+ pages every week.
Whoever wants to.
We certainly would need more crats then
Not really. Removing the admin bit takes all of two seconds. Plus, a lot of the work could be automated, just leaving a human to verify that the page is clear of socks and SPAs and performing the actual de-adminning.
On Sunday 02 March 2008 17:20, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Besides, anything that makes more work for our servants isn't a bad thing.
Admins are not servants, they are under-appreciated volunteers.
Like government, administrators on Wikipedia are at best a necessary evil, and at worst a threat to everything important. They must be kept under strict control: a close watch and a short leash at all times.
They are volunteers, yes: they volunteer to be our servants. They should not act on their own initiative, but merely implement the will of the community.
The more unpleasant and difficult we can make their task, the fewer eminently unsuited volunteers we'll have to sift through. We should make it so that only those completely and genuinely interested in being the servants of the community at large will want to bother with it.
They are volunteers, yes: they volunteer to be our servants. They should not act on their own initiative, but merely implement the will of the community.
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 02/03/2008, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
On Sunday 02 March 2008 17:20, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Besides, anything that makes more work for our servants isn't a bad thing.
Admins are not servants, they are under-appreciated volunteers.
Like government, administrators on Wikipedia are at best a necessary evil, and at worst a threat to everything important. They must be kept under strict control: a close watch and a short leash at all times.
I suggest that users blocked or banned as often as you and Raphael have been, from as many venues, may have trouble convincing people that you are onto something with this one. I know that sounds unfair, but that's just how it is. They're likely to assume "well, they would say that, wouldn't they."
- d.
On Sunday 02 March 2008 18:21, David Gerard wrote:
I suggest that users blocked or banned as often as you and Raphael have been, from as many venues, may have trouble convincing people that you are onto something with this one. I know that sounds unfair, but that's just how it is. They're likely to assume "well, they would say that, wouldn't they."
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.
On Sun, Mar 02, 2008 at 05:29:35PM -0600, Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
On Sunday 02 March 2008 17:20, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Besides, anything that makes more work for our servants isn't a bad thing.
Admins are not servants, they are under-appreciated volunteers.
Like government, administrators on Wikipedia are at best a necessary evil, and at worst a threat to everything important. They must be kept under strict control: a close watch and a short leash at all times.
They are volunteers, yes: they volunteer to be our servants. They should not act on their own initiative, but merely implement the will of the community.
The more unpleasant and difficult we can make their task, the fewer eminently unsuited volunteers we'll have to sift through. We should make it so that only those completely and genuinely interested in being the servants of the community at large will want to bother with it.
Then you will not find too many.
-- Kurt Weber kmw@armory.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
On Sun, Mar 02, 2008 at 05:29:35PM -0600, Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
On Sunday 02 March 2008 17:20, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Besides, anything that makes more work for our servants isn't a bad thing.
Admins are not servants, they are under-appreciated volunteers.
Like government, administrators on Wikipedia are at best a necessary evil, and at worst a threat to everything important. They must be kept under strict control: a close watch and a short leash at all times.
They are volunteers, yes: they volunteer to be our servants. They should not act on their own initiative, but merely implement the will of the community.
The more unpleasant and difficult we can make their task, the fewer eminently unsuited volunteers we'll have to sift through. We should make it so that only those completely and genuinely interested in being the servants of the community at large will want to bother with it.
Then you will not find too many.
-- Kurt Weber kmw@armory.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Agree, that suggestion is a bit heavy. Even for this project.
./scream
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com 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).
Good luck getting anyone to run for adminship if they're going to be subjected to what amounts to a weekly RfA.
On Sunday 02 March 2008 20:27, Chris Howie wrote:
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com 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).
Good luck getting anyone to run for adminship if they're going to be subjected to what amounts to a weekly RfA.
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 Maxwell Weber wrote:
On Sunday 02 March 2008 20:27, Chris Howie wrote:
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com 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).
Good luck getting anyone to run for adminship if they're going to be subjected to what amounts to a weekly RfA.
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?
The model you propose would almost certainly require us to persuade the foundation to pay the administrator a stipend, of compensation. If I want to volunteer to be an administrator, then I should not mind doing so uncompensated. But you you have to drag someone who does *not want* it, then could you suppose, they would need compensation. Pardon my loose parallel.
./scream
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
On Sunday 02 March 2008 20:27, Chris Howie wrote:
Good luck getting anyone to run for adminship if they're going to be subjected to what amounts to a weekly RfA.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Are you familiar with Cincinnatus? Or George Washington, for that matter?
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.
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 10:27 PM, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
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.
That first "not" is obviously not supposed to be there.
Chris Howie wrote:
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com 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).
Good luck getting anyone to run for adminship if they're going to be subjected to what amounts to a weekly RfA.
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
David Gerard wrote:
On 01/03/2008, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 01/03/2008, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
In addition to barnstars, perhaps we should also have a system of barnturds for admins who act within the strict rules, but without paying attention to respect for those who are trying to contribute in good faith.
That's hardly a helpful comment.
"Don't bite the newbies" is a painfully neglected rule, so I'm sure you can understand the frustration being expressed here. Overworked admins who think "must save the universe, bugger the newbies" are an ongoing public relations disaster.
A barnturd would reflect the variant, "Don't shit on the newbies." (Does someone with artistic flair have a nice steamy photo?) The regular awardees would likely remove the picture from their page, but one would hope that the message would eventually get through if it happens frequently enough Since it's so easy for them to remove there would be no appeal or continuing discussion. Still a repeated "BARNTURD AWARDED" appearing in the user page history would communicate a message.
Ec
On 01/03/2008, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
A barnturd would reflect the variant, "Don't shit on the newbies." (Does someone with artistic flair have a nice steamy photo?) The regular awardees would likely remove the picture from their page, but one would hope that the message would eventually get through if it happens frequently enough Since it's so easy for them to remove there would be no appeal or continuing discussion. Still a repeated "BARNTURD AWARDED" appearing in the user page history would communicate a message.
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.
On 01/03/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
But, hmm. What's a good way to approach an admin biting n00bs at a fantastic rate and edging to burnout?
Burnout is to do with the perceived ratio of effort:reward.
So rewarding them for other work at the same time as casually mentioning that you didn't like how they handled one particular newbie would probably work pretty well.
It's when it's mostly or all negative for them that burnout occurs.
- 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@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/03/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
But, hmm. What's a good way to approach an admin biting n00bs at a fantastic rate and edging to burnout?
Burnout is to do with the perceived ratio of effort:reward.
So rewarding them for other work at the same time as casually mentioning that you didn't like how they handled one particular newbie would probably work pretty well.
It's when it's mostly or all negative for them that burnout occurs.
- d.
-- -Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly imperfect world things would be a lot better.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 02/03/2008, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
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,
Yeah. Learning not to care - to clear the idea of ownership out of one's own thinking about one's Wikipedia contributions - is important.
I abandoned my watchlist in late 2004 and haven't missed it ;-)
Having a baby daughter is also useful for this self-discipline. "What's that? The wiki's going to Hell? I'm sorry, my daughter is gurgling cutely, and that's *much* more urgently important. I'll get back to you."
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.
Depends. With e.g. the psychotic viciousness shown by the people who hang out on Wikipedia Review, I'd question that as a good idea for everyone. You shouldn't need to be a seasoned cyber-warrior able to deal with any ridiculous crap just to be an admin on Wikipedia. In fact, such a requirement will I suspect lead to more burnout.
- d.
on 3/2/08 7:58 AM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/03/2008, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
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,
Yeah. Learning not to care - to clear the idea of ownership out of one's own thinking about one's Wikipedia contributions - is important.
I abandoned my watchlist in late 2004 and haven't missed it ;-)
Having a baby daughter is also useful for this self-discipline. "What's that? The wiki's going to Hell? I'm sorry, my daughter is gurgling cutely, and that's *much* more urgently important. I'll get back to you."
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.
Depends. With e.g. the psychotic viciousness shown by the people who hang out on Wikipedia Review, I'd question that as a good idea for everyone. You shouldn't need to be a seasoned cyber-warrior able to deal with any ridiculous crap just to be an admin on Wikipedia. In fact, such a requirement will I suspect lead to more burnout.
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
David Goodman schrieb:
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.
I totally agree. Those who want additional powers, should be ready to take the responsibility for their actions in real life.
cbmarketing2 wrote:
I am a National Team player for Canada Basketball. I noticed that Wikipedia did not contain any information about Canada Basketball. I attempted to create an entry but my posting keeps getting taken down.
Can anyone tell me why??
There's a good set of information abut writing your first article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Your_first_article.
Sadly, it's nearly impossible to write a good article about yourself or an organization you're intimately involved with. If Canada Basketball is at all notable, others can and will do a much better job of writing an encyclopedia article about it than you can -- why not request it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia:Requested_articles?
It is likely that the article's entry is being "speedily deleted", a system on Wikipedia which enables Administrators of the project to delete (that is, remove) articles which meet one or more criteria. There are several criteria which allow an article to be speedily deleted, including failure to establish "notability"—that is, the article has to provide sources, proving that the entry is notable.
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CSD for the speedy deletion criteria, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOTE for the notability policy. Regards, Anthony
User:AGK en.wikipedia.org
On 29/02/2008, cpstar85 cbmarketing2@basketball.ca wrote:
I am a National Team player for Canada Basketball. I noticed that Wikipedia did not contain any information about Canada Basketball. I attempted to create an entry but my posting keeps getting taken down.
Can anyone tell me why??
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Who-monitors-Wikipedia--tp15765463p15765463.html Sent from the English Wikipedia mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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:
It is likely that the article's entry is being "speedily deleted", a system on Wikipedia which enables Administrators of the project to delete (that is, remove) articles which meet one or more criteria. There are several criteria which allow an article to be speedily deleted, including failure to establish "notability"—that is, the article has to provide sources, proving that the entry is notable.
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CSD for the speedy deletion criteria, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOTE for the notability policy. Regards, Anthony
User:AGK en.wikipedia.org
On 29/02/2008, cpstar85 cbmarketing2@basketball.ca wrote:
I am a National Team player for Canada Basketball. I noticed that Wikipedia did not contain any information about Canada Basketball. I attempted to create an entry but my posting keeps getting taken down.
Can anyone tell me why??
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Who-monitors-Wikipedia-- tp15765463p15765463.html Sent from the English Wikipedia mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 29/02/2008, cpstar85 cbmarketing2@basketball.ca wrote:
I am a National Team player for Canada Basketball. I noticed that Wikipedia did not contain any information about Canada Basketball. I attempted to create an entry but my posting keeps getting taken down. Can anyone tell me why??
Note: this showed up in the mod queue as from an unsubscribed address, so you may wish to cc: any responses directly to the poster.
- d.