On 30 December 2010 09:07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 December 2010 11:06, MZMcBride z@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)