[WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

[Ray Saintonge]

Jossi Fresco wrote:

>On Feb 18, 2007, at 11:43 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Just because someone isn't going out of his way to make himself  
>>visible
>>in the way that some admins do does not mean that he is doing  
>>nothing to
>>keep Wikipedia ticking.  Your attitude is very broadly  
>>disrespectful of
>>a wide range of contributors.
>>
>>Have you forgoten that this thread started with complaints about admin
>>burnout.  The general solution that was suggested was to loosen up the
>>extreme restrictions on becoming a sysop.  But those content with the
>>present state of things argue loudly against it.  You can't have it  
>>both
>>ways.  Stop complaining about being overworked, or do something about
>>the problem.
>>    
>>
>How can my comment be disrespectful?   And why you interpret my  
>comment as "complaining"?
>
In order to be perfectly clear I will begin by quoting back the 
statement that you so conveniently left out above:

>A common complaint by these that have much to say but show little  
>interest in contributing of their valuable free time to keep  
>Wikipedia ticking.
>
>Administrators perform an admirable job and a thankless one, by the  
>look if it.
>
On what do you base the notion that those "who have much to say show 
little interest in contributing", or add the gratuitously sarcasrtic 
"valuable" to your statement.  That is disrespectful of all who working 
to find a solution to the problem. 

The series of threads did start with a very valid complaint about admin 
burnout.  Would you have preferred that I call it "self-congratulatory 
whining"? :-)

>The present state of things, is that any editors can have as much  
>involvement in Wikipedia affairs as any admin could. What is the  
>difference between an editor that has contributed 20,000 edits in two  
>years and that is not an admin, and one with the same level of  
>involvement that is one?  Absolutely *nothing*
>
And the point is?  That's not what you were suggesting in your previous 
post.

>Of course, there are perception such as yours. But these are  
>perceptions, and not facts. These forced distinctions between admins  
>and editors is a fallacy. Admins are also editors, and editors can do  
>as much as an admin besides deleting an article and closing  AfDs.
>
The broken AfD process is only a small part of the problem.

>Rather than exacerbating the width of the perceived chasm between  
>"admin" and "non-admin", we ought to be building bridges.
>
Reducing the distinction between admins and non-admins would allow us to 
build easier bridges than the engineering masterpieces that your 
approach would require.

Ec