[WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins Matt Jacobs

[c h]

IMHO, etc...
 
The fundamental problem is the difficulty in *removing* SysOp, which *makes* it a big deal.
 
If it really was no big deal, RfA wouldn't need to be such an ordeal; if a user is competent, reasonably experienced and no DRAMA, we should +SysOp them (AGF). If they fuck up, remove it (No big deal).
 
We block our precious new users at the drop of a hat, but an admin has to do something pretty damned horrific to even consider removing their status, and even then it takes months.
 
Imagine if it worked more like blocking - if an admin fucks up, remove their SysOp and have a chat about it. "Hi, I noticed that you speedy-deleted some files that do not appear to meet the CSD criteria; your SysOp staus has been removed _while we discuss it_". No big deal, the admins shouldn't mind.
 
If that were the case, there would be no need for the depth of analysis and horrible trial that is our current RfA.
 
Sadly, AGF is missing from RfA.
 
 
> Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 15:38:09 -0700
> From: Matt Jacobs 
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins
> To: wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Message-ID:
> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>> Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 20:04:43 -0400
>> From: Gwern Branwen 
>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins
>> To: English Wikipedia 
>> Message-ID:
>> 
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 7:34 PM, David Goodman 
>> wrote:
>>> Are you saying that a _declining_ number of administrators means a
>>> _growth_ in bureaucracy? ?It would normally mean the opposite, either
>>> a loss of control, or that the ordinary members were taking the
>>> function upon themselves. ?What I see is a greater degree of control
>>> and uniformity, not driven by those in formal positions of authority.
>>
>> If you assume that administrators are identical to the bureaucracy or
>> some non-shrinking proportion thereof, then that does look like a
>> falsehood.
>>
>> If you assume that administrators reflect rather the number of
>> committed long-term contributors, and their numbers wax and wane
>> pretty independently of the need for administrators, then that makes
>> sense. Little kills enthusiasm and participation as surely as
>> bureaucracy. Why are so few even trying for adminship?
>>
>
> My guess is that it's because the bureaucracy has become too intimidating.
> I suspect many editors do not want to commit the time and effort to learning
> it all.
>
>
> ------------------------------ 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/197222280/direct/01/
We want to hear all your funny, exciting and crazy Hotmail stories. Tell us now