[WikiEN-l] Major dysfunction in RfA Culture

[Matthew Brown]

On 4/15/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/15/07, Earle Martin <wikipedia at 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