[WikiEN-l] Who monitors Wikipedia?

[Thomas Dalton]

On 01/03/2008, Kurt Maxwell Weber <kmw at 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.