On 2/8/07, George Herbert <
[hidden email]> wrote:
> We apparently just lost Alkivar (hopefully just on a stress relief
> break, but he says he's out of here indefinitely).
>
> We're doing terribly at keeping identified, overstressed admins from
> ending up going over the edge. What are we doing wrong, or what do we
> need to learn to do right?
We are putting way too much on an admin pool, where only a small group
handle 60% of the load. We all need to remember, adminship is *NOT* a
big deal. You are not and should not be defined by your edit count.
Everyone is quick too jump on prospective admins, without examining it
all, and getting to know how someone will handle things. Without
requiring 5,000 edits (Which yes, is not hard to obtain.). Now this
doesn't mean there are occasions where something needs to be
WP:SNOW'ed away.
Threats from unknown sources, I know when my RfA went through, I
received a few threats against myself. Now, while I am quite used to
it, not everyone is. No one should be subjected to them. I am not sure
if these were from actual editors, trolls, or what-have it.
Abuse does happen, and when it does happen, even in small amounts it
builds up a group of people who turn and look at the admin pool as if
it was full of abuse and corruption (There is no cabal, becomes, There
is a cable and we haven't found the leader yet.). Which when this
happens, it puts stress on the admin pool.
Vandalism continues to happen, and is something we will never stop.
But we can slow it down, and rather than just block half the internet,
we need a stronger relationship with the tech community to handle the
abuse at the account end (You can't pull a new IP, if you have no
account.). We need to make it known, childish pranks *WILL NOT* be
tolerated, and blatant vandalism will result in more than just a block
and a reset of your modem/router/connection/tin can on a string.
Some proposed solutions:
* Wikipedia doubles every 6 months, we need an admin pool to
compensate it, and we need those who will focus on handling admin
issues, not waive the mop around for 2 months and discontinue use. So
lets not look at a new admin based on his edit count, but his
contributions and WILLINGNESS.
* ArbCom needs 9 new appointments (3 per term), ArbCom yes has great
arbitrators who do a wonderful job, but it is the same people doing
it, and slow down those eager to mediate disputes. So I propose we,
not take away from those arbitrators doing a great job already, but
give them more help. Arbitration is a very time consuming job, and
these should be people willing to mediate. (I do not propose we remove
the arbitrators currently serving, but we add more.)
* ArbCom needs an "internal affairs" department to look at complaints
of abuse and decide if they are just base less complaints which can
hurt an admins rep, or if the complaint is actually abuse, then
forward it to ArbCom. The committee should consist of non-ArbCom
members, and contain atleast 2 non admins.
* Admin actions need to be supported. You can not have an admin take
a good action, a user jump them, and other admins choose to take the
popular route in hopes of not pissing someone off.
* We need to get more of the people who are reading articles, and
just reading, to edit. Devising a strategy to do this, is not
something I personally am an expert in. I'm better involved in other
ways.
> --
> -george william herbert
>
[hidden email]
Regards,
Joshua Brady
[[User:Somitho]]
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Locked
