Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Administrators
 | Editor Retention | |||
| ||||
Administrator retention edit
I firmly believe we need to be working to retain good Administrators as well as good editors who are not Administrators and that this should be a clearly stated goal, perhaps even part of the project's title. I know that we are losing good Administrators, some possible because of abuse, others because of lack of community support (I don't mean deliberate lack, more inaction or lack involvement in the areas they work). Then of course there's burnout. I've recently been in contact with one good Admin who works in an area where there is a lot of pov pushing who is becoming much less active because of lack of support.(And in cases where there are areas of the world from which we draw few or no Admins we may need to be recruiting). I know of others who have left or retired from certain areas where they seem to be fighting a losing battle. Maybe there are some editors who see Admins as an unnecessary evil, but I hope the vast majority of editors understand that we play a vital role on Wikipedia. We certainly have an important role to play in helping to fix some of the problems that cause editors to leave - pov pushing, personal attacks, edit warring,etc, let alone simply blocking obvious vandals. Active Administrators are a pretty small number (697 seems to be the current count) and we are having problems getting more. but the number of articles continually grows. Dougweller (talk) 09:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- User talk:Fastily is a good example. There have been plenty more. Check out WT:RFA, where several people have pulled out statistics based on logs of how many admins are REALLY active, doing admin things It is close to 200. Many admins tire of the hassles they get, so they edit and stay out of harms way, which leads to too little of a pool of active admins, which could lead to more of a monoculture. Diversity is a good thing for the admin corps, as is experience, so I agree with you Doug. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- And I'm still waiting for you to officially sign up on the front page ;) Of course, it isn't required, but obviously you are part of the project now and I'm glad for it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with this, however the solution is not apparent to everyone. What works properly is to fight against the 'US Vs THEM' mentality from both sides. If you wanted to, I could address this with dynamics to consider and pathways to community strength, however, I do not see at the moment that there is sufficient drive for change that can carry through the radical changes that would permanently strengthen the bonds between the admins and non admins. Too many on each side don't want to work together at this point in time, and it is a shame too. Penyulap ☏ 11:37, 9 Jul 2012 (UTC)
- Retention of experienced users is important whether they are sysops or not. There is work done about how wikipedia selects sysops that might help (I mentioned it to John above) wrt sysops, and there is an interesting study on wikipedia "power users" too. There are a number of inter-related things that have effected my own experience: burnout, abuse, hounding, actual harassment/real-life stalking (yes it happens), time-wasting, and then real-life/work commitments. There are also off-site issues we can't fix that are designed by banned users to hound ppl here. IMHO we need to see what keeps ppl here as much as we need to see what pushes them away--Cailil talk 13:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- One good example of admin retention is the trouble Bwilkins is facing. Jimmy called him out pretty hard on the Jimbo talk page for an obvious gross error made by Bwilkins, suggesting he retire his bit for 6 months. I let it be known that this was a bit strong. I personally like Bwilkins but think s/he can be a bit strong sometimes, but is otherwise a very good admin. I think the key is engaging admins openly, politely but firmly and working these issues out before it gets to this point. We have to be able to politely speak out when an admin messes up, without making them feel like they are being attacked. We can't have a Code of Silence, which lowers trust in the community, and we certainly don't want to push good admins away by either being too abrasive about their mistakes, or by waiting until it is too late before addressing them. What we need is just some kind but honest discussion with admins. I'm not sure how to do this in a way that that is both public and without drama, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 15:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Bridging the gap is the purpose of the template that I 'incubate' on my talkpage (barely masked by the I don't like admins dynamic). Where an admin makes a block, and everyone signs off on it, then that IS a strong block, the admin has the support of the community and that is plain to see. Sure, you are going to have small CONLIMITeds, but a clearly stated reason on an otherwise 'out!voted' template will not lose editors because it makes sense to them. Whereas to the !voters socks and so on who just think oh it's three to one or whatever, they might get to wondering why policy overrides conlimit. The template itself is a success, although I may have had slight doubts about the equations before placing it, within a few hours I knew with complete certainty, and then enjoyed examining new data, how people are reluctant to speak out, and people are reluctant to 'back up' a bad action. Obviously at the moment it is a voluntary thing rather than the template used, but I expect it would be interesting where editors sign off on their own templates saying that a block was a good idea. I intend to try that as well, for the previous block and see what happens there, I expect as there is less controversy, it would possibly produce more useful data, less critical of admins and a more balanced appraisal of it's merits. Of course I still know that in the end the project destination hasn't changed, and officially I'm still not meant to be liking admins or something, blah blah don't forget it. Penyulap ☏ 14:20, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators § Involved admins edit
User:Novem Linguae: regarding your edit about involved admins: as User:Espresso Addict has removed your description, can you provide more insight on how the administrators policy for involved admins has changed? I don't have enough background to know what the community standards used to be. isaacl (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hey there. I don't mind the change. Most of what I added was summarizing some thoughts that people mentioned at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 46#Question on resysop requests. I think I may have also summarized a WP:AN thread. If folks want to change it, I have no objection. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Did you get a sense from that discussion on how the policy on involved admins is stricter? Without further guidance, "WP:INVOLVED is stricter." is a bit mysterious-sounding. I can imagine back in the days when admins were appointed and everyone knew each other, there was less concerns about who enforced policy. However, I don't have the first-hand experience to be able to adequately describe how things have changed. isaacl (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Novem Linguae: I'm not seeing anything in that Bureaucrat Noticeboard discussion relating directly to WP:Involved? The policy was relevant in at least one recent ArbCom removal of tools, but I can't think of anything else. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Could have been that AN thread I mentioned. But honestly I don't think this is worth a deep dive, as I don't object to your edit. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps the whole item should be removed for now? If someone can provide more description on how community standards have changed, they can add that guidance. isaacl (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Fine by me! Espresso Addict (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Guidance on biographies for living persons edit
Can anyone add more details on how the guidance for biographies for living persons is stricter
? It would be great if someone who has been a long-time participant in revising Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons could provide a historical look at how the guidance has changed. isaacl (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)