On 30 December 2010 09:07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 30 December 2010 11:06, MZMcBride
<z(a)mzmcbride.com> wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
> OK, if you want a real answer: I think if you
could convince admins to
> be nicer to people, then that would make a bigger impact to
> Wikipedia's long-term viability than any ease-of-editing feature.
> Making editing easier will give you a one-off jump in editing
> statistics, it won't address the trend.
Given that there are about 770 active
administrators[2] on the English
Wikipedia and I think you could reasonably say that a good portion are
not
mean, is it really quite a few people who are
having this far-reaching
impact that you're suggesting exists? That seems unlikely.
There is some discussion of how the community and ArbCom enable
grossly antisocial behaviour on internal-l at present. Admin behaviour
is enforced by the ArbCom, and the AC member on internal-l has mostly
been evasive. It's not clear what approach would work at this stage;
it would probably have to get worse before the Foundation could
reasonably step in.
Perhaps if communication actually took place with Arbcom itself, rather than
on a list in which there is no Arbcom representative, there might be a
better understanding of the concerns you have mentioned. There's no "Arbcom
representative" on internal-L, and in fact this is something of a bone of
contention.
Nonetheless, I think the most useful post in this entire thread has been Tim
Starling's, and I thank him for it.
Risker
(who is coincidentally an enwp Arbitration Committee member but is in no way
an Arbcom representative on this list)