On 30 December 2010 09:07, David Gerard <dger...@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) _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
