Wikipedia talk:What administrators do/Archive 1

message: ...then why can't I become an admin merely based on extensive edits to the Wikipedia: namespace? --Aaron 04:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because RFA is broken, in my opinion, as well :). People simply have varying views of what an administrator should be. Cowman109Talk 04:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If Admins are not here to build the encyclopedia... 

message: I see what you are trying to say, i.e. that the tools given to admins don't help them expand the content of Wikipedia, but the title is terrible. Given the recent drama between admins and editors this essay title will only be inflammatory and unhelpful. Also, even though deletion, blocking and page protection don't actually add content, I think everyone would agree that they are necessary tools in helping "build the encyclopedia". Everyone is here to build the encyclopedia, in one way or another. Admins are just given a few tools that would be too dangerous to grant all editors. —Nate Scheffey 11:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. The implication in this essay seems to be that a) administrators shouldn't be writing articles and/or b) people who write articles don't have the ability to become administrators (e.g. the rather bizarre suggestion that people who write articles may not be familiar with civility - well, no they may not be, but that's not restricted to people who write articles and neither does it mean that most people who write articles cannot be civil). By splitting administrators into "types" the essay fails to acknowledge that there are plenty of people out there (and I'd like to think that I was one of them), administrators and non-administrators alike, who both write articles and interact with other users. My main enjoyment on WP is in writing articles, but I still interact with other users and use my admin powers when necessary. Does my desire to write articles mean that I am a bad administrator? I think not. -- Necrothesp 12:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an essay mostly in response to the growing number of people who seem to think that only people who make featured articles should become administrators, and all administrators should be focusing on creating and improving articles instead of doing things in other namespaces. I admit the language could be toned down a bit - the types of administrators section I don't like much myself, either, and it doesn't seem to focus on what I'm trying to get across. I'll see if I can reword it a bit. Cowman109Talk 17:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I changed the title as the original deviated too much from my intent. Is this more acceptable to you now? Cowman109Talk 18:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horrible title 

message: This page sounds like instruction creep, in that it creates more levels of bureaucracy than we already have... I do not see right now how that is a good thing. Ansell 11:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how this constitutes instruction creep. I am simply working to clear up misconceptions about administrators that strangely seem to be growing, such as the belief that we should punish administrators who do not work on the main article namepsace and that administrators who focus on backlogs are less important than everyone else. This in no way tells people what to do, and for the record I loathe process with a fiery passion and believe firmly in IAR, so if you're telling me that this somehow introduces process, I'll be more than glad to kill the process inducing words with fire :) Cowman109Talk 19:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahah, I see the paragraph you were referring to and removed the links to WP:DENY and suggestions of how administrators should deal with vandalism accounts. I also toned down the wording (and removed quite a bit) from the 'articles' section. Cowman109Talk 19:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instruction creep 

message: this "essay" is very much mistaken on several levels (such as the implication that "administrators" are a seperate set from, rather than a true subset of, editors), and it raises the question, how bad can an essay be to be kept in WP namespace before it must be moved to user namespace? This one cannot even be fixed because its very title is a mistake. Admins are editors who have shown they may be trusted to act in the project's interest. There is no way to even become an admin other than helping build the encyclopedia. Admins who drop their "let's build an encyclopedia" attitude the moment they are given the buttons they wanted have betrayed the community's trust. Admins who slowly lose the focus of building the encyclopedia should seriously re-evaluate why they are here in the first place. The last thing we want is a "shadow community" of IRCite admins who have lost interest in building the encyclopedia. dab (ᛏ) 08:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. This is the first step towards a highly bureaucratic system bordering on caste system. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 09:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My opinion is that people who prefer IRC chatting to WP editing, should be admins on IRC rather than WP. I don't see how, with little or no experience in editing, content disputes, etc, they may adequately run Wikipedia these days. Should we wonder that quality editors leave the project in droves? Unlike specialists in content, there will never be a shortage of people craving for power to judge and to block. Currently, the surest way to adminship is to log in on IRC and to spend there some 10+ hours a day. We are told that admins are just janitors or they do some mysterious "behind-the-scenes-work"; but why did janitors usurp the power in this would-be temple of knowledge and treat its priests (contributors) with dismissiveness bordering on contempt? I am told that WP namespace starts to resemble IRC which I am told is a total, disgraceful mess. It is very sad here nowadays. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I would also encourage Cowman to userfy this to his own space, possibly under a different title. Saying this is an essay that has the support of many editors is probably...stretching things a bit, and the title certainly will end up stretching tempers past their breaking point. -- nae'blis 18:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am more than willing to edit specifics to be more acceptable and compromising (which I've done), but as I've stated above, the issues here need to be addressed. Too many users are under the silly impression that we should punish administrators who don't work in the article namespace. For the record, this was moved from userspace to the Wikipedia namespace (by suggestion from *gasp* IRC! :) ). And, it's pretty unrelated, but I feel that IRC is also an important tool for communication - it lets administrators coordinate and informally ask for help - it is also an extremely crucial point in mediation, as I've found with the mediation cabal, but that's mostly unrelated from adminship. Cowman109Talk 19:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I strongly agree 100% with all of Mark's comments. Giano 19:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: very much mistaken

message: See :Category:Wikipedia_rejected_proposals and Template:rejected. In other words, preserve the discussion for historical interest and future revival of variants of these discussions. Simnply deleting out-of-hand is destructive. Carcharoth 12:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think that might be the most sensible idea. I reject it, for reasons outlined above. However, in category:rejected proposals I found a few userfied proposals too, so the two options are not mutually exclusive. Deleting it without leaving a trace is obviously not a good idea. — mark ✎ 12:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: * Done. - Mailer Diablo 16:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I suggest rejecting this