Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-06-29/Op-ed

Op-ed

What do admins actually do?

Contribute —

By Kudpung

Admin Ship demasted, in a storm, and taking on water

The Admin Ship – all hands on deck!

In last month's Signpost we reported that discussions about adminship had dropped not just to a trickle, but had dried up completely. The article produced a massive 70,000 byte river of comment, positive and objective. It refloated talks again at WT:RfA, once Wikipedia's most popular forum, after its longest period ever without a post, and culminated in the successful bids for captaincy by two new candidates. However, with still only five new admins for the year, as we mark the halfway point through 2018, the seachart painstakingly maintained by WereSpielChequers, continues to predict dismal progress over the sysop waters. In this June issue, we take a look at what admins actually do and why they do it. We asked an ad-hoc selection of some 40 or so of the most active admins to describe their work.

What they get up to while we're not looking

The vast majority of the work admins do comprises operations that get little publicity. Literally swabbing the decks of backlogs of routine issues, it's what give them the name of "janitor", and their tool(s) the "mop". Most of the admins we asked each do a variety of tasks that involve the tools in non-contentious areas. One admin, Diannaa, focuses nowadays almost exclusively on copyright cleanup using the copy patrol Interface. She spends two to five hours a day on this and chose this area because there are very few people working on copyright cleanup in particular. That's a lot of hours and shows real dedication to a single and very necessary chore. Most others, although they have preferred areas, touch on several aspects of the job. Just a few sysops systematically patrol areas for instances where their tools are most useful, AfD closures, and other deletion backlogs, such as RHaworth who sails on a set course through the Category:CSD: "Almost entirely doing speedy deletions from CAT:CSD with blocking and page protection to complete some jobs. Why? Each deletion is complete in itself. There is no need for ongoing monitoring and discussion as is needed if one looks after a specific article."

Others regularly take care of permission requests, or regularly responding to vandalism reports or requests for page protection. Many simply intervene during their normal editing where they can use their tools to resolve the problems they encounter, and occasionally close editing debates requiring admin trust to assess the consensus.

What they get up to while we are looking

Creating the bow wave with all their spray are the drama boards, blocks, bans and other sanctions. Wikipedia's Hurricane Alley with even hotter waters than the Atlantic Ocean is the poop deck of that dreaded sea dragon, Aunty Ani, more politely referred to as Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and woe betide anyone who gets dragged there, whether admin or simple deck hands. Not too infrequently, editors asking for other users to be keel-hauled end up with the wind blowing the spray back in their faces; there's a Wikipedia essay on that too: Boomerang. Not many of the admins we spoke to venture into these dangerous waters – for some, it's more to be feared than the Bermuda Triangle. One admin finds that ANI seems to have developed an "unruly and aggressive culture" that makes it "very difficult to hold a structured productive discussion". Boing! said Zebedee tells us:

“

[...] I'm trying to keep away from difficult and contentious things now, because they get to be a drain over the long term. So, I'm not really doing anything particularly difficult or challenging these days. As an example, there are civility issues at ANI that in the past I might have tried to address, but these days it seems pointless trying to improve that horrible place. The Discretionary Sanctions area is one I find too complex to spend my time on – lots of rigid procedures and logs and stuff (which might be needed, but I don't get on with bureaucracy)

”

One of the admins who rarely participates on drama boards or policy-making believes the growth of policies over the years is the worst change that has ever happened to Wikipedia. MelanieN is another admin who avoids the drama boards as much as possible. She nevertheless participates as a regular editor on contentious article talk pages and is sometimes described as "the grown-up in the room." On Discretionary sanctions, another fairly contentious area that has even led to wheel warring on several occasions, Bishonen, who actually likes working there also believes that people stay clear of all DS because of the paperwork, the logs, and the templates.

Just how challenging is it being a fairly busy admin?

One admin replies with one of his characteristic pithy comments: "Keeping my mouth shut and my tools in the box when people piss me off. I find it really hard sometimes to let them have the last word, but I usually do. It's unbelievable how stubborn and/or nasty some people can be. Some people just don't realise that admins, just like all other genuine editors, are unpaid volunteers." Comments from other admins include 'Explaining why I've done something. The explanation isn't necessarily difficult, but attempting to demonstrate to someone that what I've done is proper and completely within the bounds of what an admin should do (especially when they just are complaining and are refusing to listen) is frustrating at times' (Primefac), and Alex Shih (quoting Dennis Brown) says: "[...] the most difficult time would be when you are being personally attacked, but unable to take admin action when you technically could, and unable to receive assistance in time.'

What do they enjoy doing most as admins?

Our admins are almost unanimous in that they derive the greatest satisfaction from using their tools to rescue new or confused users who have strayed unwittingly into deeper waters and nudge them back into the shallows, although some do say that this is often not an easy thing to do. One admin finds the easiest and most pleasant part of their work is "being able to help the overwhelming majority of our responsible, collegial Wikipedians get on with their work by shielding them from troublemakers through administrative sanctions where they are needed." Yunshui enjoys the fact that so many admin tasks can now be completed in a handful of clicks using scripts instead of doing them manually. He gets satisfaction from "consigning vandalism only accounts to the dungheap of blockdom". Like most admins, Anne Delong likes "being able to fix my own problems instead of having to ask for help, and to deal with technical issues such as page moves, history merges, and [revision deletions]". Like most other active admins, she values being able to see deleted content when contributing to discussions.

“

Working on speedy deletions, I am contributing to maintaining the quality of the encyclopedia. It requires skill and judgement. Perhaps surprisingly, it offers variety: there is a complete spectrum of responses to any one case from 'delete with disgust and block the perpetrator' at one extreme, through 'move to draftspace' to 'remove the speedy tag and reprimand the user who applied it' at the other extreme. Shameful thing to admit: I enjoy giving supercilious replies to 'why did you delete' questions on my talk page. I don't set out to be rude to people but it often seems to come out that way! —RHaworth

”

Admin 'abuse'

One of the very quirks in our English language is that the phrase 'admin abuse' can be interpreted two ways. Yes, dear Reader, you've got it: either you are one of those editors who hurls insults and offense at sysops, or you are an admin who (apparently) mistreats the editors – or you simply get on with your work and stay out of the firing line whichever way the cannon balls are flying, which is actually what quite a few of our admins do. One admin has twice received nasty emails from editors who found her personal website and email address online, and for a while she was being impersonated by someone who was trying to solicit money for COI edits. She hasn't noticed general hostility towards her personally as an admin.

When asked about whether they have been the target of harassment or personal attacks, Sandstein reports "[...] regularly, from editors who are angry that I sanctioned them, or from their friends. If one works in sanctions-related areas, one has to accept this, to some degree, as part of the job, and one has to be able to ignore it. But I regularly have to remind myself that I need to be able to distinguish valid, good-faith criticism from the sort of reflexive assumptions of bad faith that are sometimes the consequence of sanctions, and this is not always easy."

“

Of course I've been heckled by people I've disobliged. Doesn't bother me. Also it's worth noting that you don't have to be an admin to be harassed and abused for trying to make Wikipedia better. (Sitush again comes to mind.) I absolutely don't think the non-admin community is generally hostile. On the contrary. There are a very few established users who have made something of a career of panning admins as a group, that's all. —Bishonen

”

The author of this Signpost article tells of being abused:

“

[...] both on- and off-Wiki but possibly not as much as some admins who are also simply doing their job. On-Wiki it mainly comes from trolls, but the deliberate off-Wiki stuff on the Wikipedia hate sites can be particularly distressing. Any admin who is going to work in the trenches is going to have to put up with it. I don't think the non-admin users are generally hostile towards admins but there definitely used to be a significant number of recurring names that revelled in every opportunity to trip an admin up. In the past I've loosely referred to them as the 'anti-admin brigade' – indeed in the past their attacks have clearly been coordinated but since some of the major actors have retired, calmed down, or been blocked, it's very much less acute than it used to be.

”

HJ Mitchell "Harry", explains that he has suffered abuse "many, many times":

“

When I had more free time and was a more active admin I dealt with a lot of our less ... charming vandals. So yes, I've received abuse, some of it grotesque, but I usually take it as a sign that I'm doing something right (I'd rather they came to insult me than go somewhere where they might actually cause some damage!). As for the community, I don't think it's generally hostile to admins. In general, I think we as a community value the work our admins do to keep the wheels turning but some members of the community have negative feelings towards admins, or more accurately towards what they perceive as a specific group of admins. This is not helped by a few admins who throw their weight around, but some friction in a large community is almost inevitable.

”

Are they in it for the power it gives them over content and to bully other users?

Apparently not. But most of them report a suspicion that some non-admins think they are. According to JamesBWatson, "[...] contrary to what a lot of non-admins think, being an administrator is not much about having more power, much more about spending time on routine cleanup work and therefore having less time available to do constructive editing, which is what I (and probably all of us) came here to do". Beeblebrox concurs, saying: "As always when discussing adminship I'd like to mention that it is not some all-powerful position of godlike authority. When you’ve deleted a few thousand pages of the same promotional garbage you begin to understand that it really is just keeping the place clean."

Conclusions

Generally, our most active admins like their work although some find it sometimes time-consuming and at times not quite so easy. Those who work in the stormier waters accept that they will occasionally bear the brunt of remarks and actions of less pleasant contributors, trolls, and vandals, but they take it in their stride. The questions we asked (for this article) were:

In which areas do you mainly or normally use your admin tools? (such as deletion/undeletion, blocking, page protection, revdel, PERM, etc.). What's the reason for your choice?
In what areas, if any, do you regularly exercise non-tool admin judgement? (such as debate closures, RfA, AN, ANI, Arbcom cases, policy making, etc). What's the reason for your choice?
What do you find most challenging or difficult about being an admin?
What do you find easiest, or most pleasing about being an admin?
Have you ever been the target of harassment or PA? How do you perceive some of the claims that the non-admin community is generally hostile towards sysops?

The admins were exceptionally frank and forthcoming with their answers. Readers who are interested in how each admin replied can see the full set of sysop answers for this article, with an introduction, below. We heartily thank the respondents for allowing themselves to be press-ganged into participating in our inquisition without any hesitation. We make no comments as to whether the survey is truly representative of our admins in general.

In next month's issue of The Signpost, we will be sailing into hopefully calmer waters on the last leg of the admin ship's current voyage. Admins will be giving us their thoughts on the RfA process and some advice for potential candidates.

The Signpost adminship research, June 2018

The 32 responses are listed in the chronological order they arrived. Each respondent was able to see the previous replies.The invites went out quite late; ten did not respond but they may be in semi-retirement, on a short break, or did not log in the short time the research was conducted. There was no strict method to the selection other than the investigator's own recollection of the names of some of our more active or prominent sysops. Three responses were submitted by admins who were not invited but who had seen the invite on other talk pages or in their watchlists. Their responses are equally important, have been evaluated, and are listed here. Some questions and their answers are not displayed here as they were asked for use in a further Signpost article in our series on adminship. The replies are otherwise as submitted and unabridged. Apart from some minor formatting for readability, no proof reading or copyediting has been done - any typos or grammatical errors are those of the respondents.

We make no comments as to whether the survey is truly representative of our admins in general. We heartily thank the respondents for their frank and open answers. The research was designed and carried out by Kudpung.

Casliber

In which areas do you mainly or normally use your admin tools? (such as deletion/undeletion, blocking, page protection, revdel, PERM, etc.). What's the reason for your choice?

A: Mainly page protection - as I am mainly a content contributor I have got a feeling for vandalism that is easy or difficult to keep track of (and fix), or BLPs with sensitive info that there should be a lower threshold of protection. I have also kept an eye on speedy deletions from time to time

In what areas, if any, do you regularly exercise non-tool admin judgement? (such as debate closures, RfA, AN, ANI, Arbcom cases, policy making, etc). What's the reason for your choice?

A: Arb cases when I was an arb (self explanatory). Not really much else I can think of

What do you find most challenging or difficult about being an admin?

A: When to protect/unprotect can be difficult at times (e.g. when there are constructive IP edits), when to block some times (which I don't do a huge amount of)

What do you find easiest, or most pleasing about being an admin?

A: Extra tools are useful - not much else really. I don't believe admins should have status over users that are not admins solely based on adminhood

Have you ever been the target of harassment or PA? How do you perceive some of the claims that the non-admin community is generally hostile towards sysop's?

A: Fleetingly. But nothing I couldn't handle. I don't think they are generally hostile. I think some people have problems with some admins, but this isn't general (despite some comments that might indicate same)

Anything else you would like to add?

A: Not really. It should be No Big Deal still..

Sandstein

In which areas do you mainly or normally use your admin tools? (such as deletion/undeletion, blocking, page protection, revdel, PERM, etc.). What's the reason for your choice?

A: I'm mainly active in closing AfDs and at arbitration enforcement (WP:AE). There's no particular reason for that, but I think that specializing in only a few areas of admin activity is helpful because it allows one to develop a certain depth of experience and familiarity with community expectations and practices that helps in making decisions that are broadly accepted.

In what areas, if any, do you regularly exercise non-tool admin judgement? (such as debate closures, RfA, AN, ANI, Arbcom cases, policy making, etc). What's the reason for your choice?

A: I occasionally close RfCs and other discussions when they come up at AN. These are often rather similar to XfDs in that one needs to be able to assess consensus as well as the strength of the arguments made in the light of our policies and guidelines. I'm probably not as active at AN and ANI as I should be; ANI in particular seems to have developed an unruly and aggressive culture that makes it very difficult to hold a structured, productive discussion.

What do you find most challenging or difficult about being an admin?

A: If an admin is mainly active in deciding contentious issues (AfDs or sanctions) then it is almost unavoidable that one side or the other will be disappointed in the admin's actions, and will often loudly complain about it. And there's often not much (or not as vociferous) support by users who agree with the decision. Because admin decisions are generally made by the admin alone, and there may be many users on the disappointed side, it's easy to get the impression of being bullied if the admin isn't used to handling criticism in their professional life. In a way, life is easiest for admins if they do nothing, or at least nothing remotely controversial - and that's disappointing, I think.

What do you find easiest, or most pleasing about being an admin?

A:While individual actions can be challenging sometimes, taken as a whole I like that I'm able to help improve the overall quality of Wikipedia by removing self-promotion, unverifiable content, etc. through closing AfDs, and to help the overwhelming majority of responsible, collegial Wikipedians get on with their work by shielding them from troublemakers through administrative sanctions where they are needed.

Have you ever been the target of harassment or PA? How do you perceive some of the claims that the non-admin community is generally hostile towards sysop's?

A: Yes, regularly, from editors who are angry that I sanctioned them, or from their friends. If one works in sanctions-related areas, one has to accept this, to some degree, as part of the job, and one has to be able to ignore it. But I regularly have to remind myself that I need to be able to distinguish valid, good-faith criticism from the sort of reflexive assumptions of bad faith that are sometime the consequence of sanctions, and this is not always easy.

I don't think that there's hostility from "the non-admin community" per se. What I observe is rather that groups of often long-established editors, both admins and non-admins, become so established in their social network or their particular niches of content or policy, that they begin to believe that common rules of conduct don't apply to them any more, or that their network of friends will shield them of consequences if they start behaving much more aggressively towards others than is acceptable. It is addressing misconduct issues in such contexts that generates, in my experience, the most friction and hostility. Of course, as a somewhat veteran editor myself, I regularly need to remind myself not to fall prey to the kind of arrogance that sometimes accompanies experience or routine.

SoWhy

In which areas do you mainly or normally use your admin tools? (such as deletion/undeletion, blocking, page protection, revdel, PERM, etc.). What's the reason for your choice?

A: Mostly speedy deletion and AFD these days, with some blocking at UAA. I decided to focus on speedy deletion because it's an area with high BITE-risks and often the first time new good-faith contributors are confronted with the bureaucracy that is Wikipedia - and, if things don't go well, the last time they contribute at all.

In what areas, if any, do you regularly exercise non-tool admin judgement? (such as debate closures, RfA, AN, ANI, Arbcom cases, policy making, etc). What's the reason for your choice?

A: Every now and then I will close a discussion at AN(I) or a discussion that needs closing and I regularly contribute to policy making discussions. I do so because when I can help I like to do it.

What do you find most challenging or difficult about being an admin?

A: The negativity that admins have to deal with, trying to stay calm when people make claims of bad-faith actions when one knows all one wanted to do is help the project.

What do you find easiest, or most pleasing about being an admin?

A: Being able to help other editors and, hopefully, making the project a little bit better with each action you take.

Have you ever been the target of harassment or PA? How do you perceive some of the claims that the non-admin community is generally hostile towards sysop's?

A: Some harassment and personal attacks are to be expected when making decisions some might find unpopular. Nothing really problematic though. I never thought of a "non-admin community" or that they could generally be hostile against admins and I never perceived anything like that. Some non-admin users are hostile against admins and some admins are hostile against non-admins but generally, no.

Anything else you would like to add?

A: Nothing I can think of right now.

Yunshui

In which areas do you mainly or normally use your admin tools? (such as deletion/undeletion, blocking, page protection, revdel, PERM, etc.). What's the reason for your choice?

A: I block, a lot. Most of my time is spent patrolling AIV and UAA. I realise it's an area that many others are active in as well, but with the sheer volume of vandalism and POV editing that goes on, it's a Sisyphean task, so that's where I get my hands dirtiest. The flipside is unblock reviews, which I also spend a good deal of time on most days; if someone's genuinely going to turn over a new leaf, I'm keep to give them that opportunity.

I also patrol the CSD category fairly regularly, and lately I've been putting in some hours at AFD as well. It's all part of the general admin role of cleaning up other people's mess...

In what areas, if any, do you regularly exercise non-tool admin judgement? (such as debate closures, RfA, AN, ANI, Arbcom cases, policy making, etc). What's the reason for your choice?

A: Before I did my stint at ArbCom a couple of years ago, I was fairly happy bouncing around closing debates, but since coming back after a period of retirement I find it less appealing. ArbCom expose you to some really shitty human behaviour, and quite frankly I lost interest in trying to find consensus among people who clearly had no intention of ever compromising on the silliest of disputes. I'm slowly starting to spend more time in these areas again, looking at RFCs and the like, but the tendency of disputants to derail discussions (nobody teaches proper rhetoric in schools any more...) in favour of picking at one another's edits like scabs is somewhat disheartening. Sometimes you want to grab all participants by their lapels and yell at them to just grow up!

What do you find most challenging or difficult about being an admin?

A: The above - scavenging through reams of RFC/AFD/ANI arguments to find the handful of policy-based positions on which to base a consensus is a pain in the nuts.

What do you find easiest, or most pleasing about being an admin?

A: I love me some scripts (I have a shrine to Writ Keeper in my bathroom, you know); the fact that so many admin tasks can now be completed in a handful of clicks (instead of the multiple pages and edits that used to be required) makes most tasks incredibly easy nowadays. In terms of what pleases me: there's a certain satisfaction, even pride, to be had in knowing that one is protecting and preserving the world's greatest repository of knowledge. It's genuinely quite satisfying to consign yet another VOA to the dungheap of blockdom.

Have you ever been the target of harassment or PA? How do you perceive some of the claims that the non-admin community is generally hostile towards sysops?

A: Who hasn't? You have to weigh it against the positive feedback, though, of which I receive my fair share. My overall view is that the community are generally well-disposed towards administrators; most editors appreciate what we do. The ones who don't are usually the ones who have been blocked, banned or otherwise censured, and who wouldn't feel annoyed by that?

Anything else you would like to add?

A: There is no admin-shaped cookie-cutter. Throw the same scenario at any two administrators, and you may well get a completely different answer. This is as it should be. I am always happy for other admins to review and even overrule my decisions; I may not agree with them, but the diversity of the admin corps - just like the diversity of the editing community - is one of Wikiepdia's great assets, and I wouldn't want it any other way.

CambridgeBayWeather

In which areas do you mainly or normally use your admin tools? (such as deletion/undeletion, blocking, page protection, revdel, PERM, etc.). What's the reason for your choice?

A:Mainly page protection. Some blocking.

In what areas, if any, do you regularly exercise non-tool admin judgement? (such as debate closures, RfA, AN, ANI, Arbcom cases, policy making, etc). What's the reason for your choice?

A:Don't really do much of that.

What do you find most challenging or difficult about being an admin?

A:Sometimes a lack of understanding as to why you didn't protect a page or you did protect it and won't change it.

What do you find easiest, or most pleasing about being an admin?

A:Being able to help newer editors.

Have you ever been the target of harassment or PA? How do you perceive some of the claims that the non-admin community is generally hostile towards sysop's?

A:This year a bit of off-Wiki that I sent to Arbcom. In truth it seems to me that there is a lost less displeasure with admins than in years past.

SilkTork

In which areas do you mainly or normally use your admin tools? (such as deletion/undeletion, blocking, page protection, revdel, PERM, etc.). What's the reason for your choice?

A: My use of the tools varies. When I became an admin what I mostly wanted the tools for was to move pages as part of my everyday editing, so I didn't have to nag other admins. I think I used the tools most when I was part of the Arbitration Committee to block or unblock people, and to look at deleted material, and when I was active in closing AfDs to delete articles. I am less active on the site these days, so I have probably returned now to moving pages being my main use of the tools. I will block a user or protect a page if I see the need, but I don't actively patrol for problems. I keep myself open to requests for admin assistance, but I also keep myself open for requests for experienced user assistance. While I recognise there is an "admin role", I see myself first and foremost as an experienced user who has a few extra tools.

In what areas, if any, do you regularly exercise non-tool admin judgement? (such as debate closures, RfA, AN, ANI, Arbcom cases, policy making, etc). What's the reason for your choice?

A: I don't think of myself as an admin first, but as an experienced user first. We generally give the tools to those users who are experienced, so the two generally go hand in hand, but there are plenty of experienced users who don't ask for the tools, possibly because they think that having the tools means you have to adopt an admin mindset. The only admin mindset I think I have is that of taking care not to behave in a manner that ArbCom typically describes as "conduct unbecoming of an admin" - but I think I had that mindset from the moment I joined Wikipedia because I want this project to work, and I firmly believe in our community behaviour guidelines, so I abide by them.

What do you find most challenging or difficult about being an admin?

A: Being an admin is not a challenge, but doing certain tasks is. Some non-admin tasks can be a challenge - such as working on a complex, high-profile, contentious article to bring it to GA or FA level. The task I find most challenging as an admin (and I think any admin who has done one will agree) is doing a HistoryMerge. So, it's not having the extra tools that's the challenge, but doing certain tasks - and that is common to all users. And we all, as volunteers, have the option not to do certain tasks we feel are too stressful.

What do you find easiest, or most pleasing about being an admin?

A: The ability to be able to fix something immediately myself (like a broken template that has been protected) rather than ask someone else to do it.

Have you ever been the target of harassment or PA? How do you perceive some of the claims that the non-admin community is generally hostile towards sysop's?

A: The most harassment and PA I experienced (pretty much the only harassment and PA) was when I was a newbie and making mistakes, and if you look at my edit history you'll see that after about six months I had had enough of it, and pretty much all but stopped participating. But after a break for four months I pulled myself together and got back in it. I was told when I joined ArbCom that I would be subjected to all sorts of abuse, and I should protect my identity, and not have pictures of my family on my User page. But, somehow, thankfully, I never got any abuse. I chose to work in the area of block/ban appeals, and would frequently have to turn down requests from very frustrated users. But none of them were vindictive toward me. I was quite comfortable dealing with some difficult users - I think perhaps because I treated everyone the same. I treated people with polite respect. We all have our issues. This does not mean we are bad people.

Dennis Brown

In which areas do you mainly or normally use your admin tools? (such as deletion/undeletion, blocking, page protection, revdel, PERM, etc.). What's the reason for your choice?

A: I have a fairly large watch list of our most commonly viewed articles, so I watch for vandalism, etc. When I'm more active, I also patrol admin boards to help out with reports. Primary goal is to protect the integrity of the articles that are most likely to be read by students. My tool use is pretty varied. Some days I just feel like closing a bunch of AFDs, so I do, although I often end up participating in one or two instead of closing, if I think I have something worth adding.

In what areas, if any, do you regularly exercise non-tool admin judgement? (such as debate closures, RfA, AN, ANI, Arbcom cases, policy making, etc). What's the reason for your choice?

A: Often will patrol talk pages of "hot topic" new articles (school shootings, etc) to simply moderate and prevent problems, while not offering opinions on the topic itself. I do this because it is helpful to have someone that CAN use the tools active in answering basic policy questions. Better to mediate when possible.

What do you find most challenging or difficult about being an admin?

A: Policy creep. The number of people who are only interested in changing policy rather than adding content has grown, so there are constant debates over modifying policy, and the policies keep growing. This makes it more difficult to actually follow policy. We have move away from WP:COMMONSENSE and towards a more rigid and verbose policy system that makes it more difficult to act as admin, and in part, has lead me to be less active.

What do you find easiest, or most pleasing about being an admin?

A: The tools are very useful for editing. It is nice to be able to fix something instantly rather than trying to figure out where to ask to get it fixed.

Have you ever been the target of harassment or PA? How do you perceive some of the claims that the non-admin community is generally hostile towards sysop's?

A: Just about every admin gets personal attacks from time to time if they ever get involved in mediating or deal with sockpuppets. There is a degree of hostility towards admin by a minority of non-admin, but admin are perceived as "authority figures", much more than we deserve, so just like in the real world, you are going to have a group of people that despise anyone who is an authority figure. This is expected and to a degree, normal. Sometimes I agree with their assessments, so it doesn't bug me. I've had people TRY to really harass me once or twice, but I just ignore them and they go away. By not feeding the trolls, I've avoided most problems.

Anything else you would like to add?

A: Wikipedia is a constantly changing place, and much of the change is not good change. We've lost a lot of good editors over the years, and we seem to be in an era where a larger ratio of people are interested in the policy and structure side rather than the articles. Hopefully, the pendulum will swing back the other way some day.

Anne Delong

In which areas do you mainly or normally use your admin tools? (such as deletion/undeletion, blocking, page protection, revdel, PERM, etc.). What's the reason for your choice?

A: Lately I've been caught up in a couple of projects which don't require the tools, so I've been using them only occasionally. Before that I was working at AfC and in Draft space, so I was doing a lot of history merges, as well as deletions, undeletions, and a few revdels of copyvios. I will get back to doing more of this again; I enjoy the intellectual exercise of organizing the revisions to merge the page histories, and as a creative person I think it's important to deal with copyright issues.

In what areas, if any, do you regularly exercise non-tool admin judgement? (such as debate closures, RfA, AN, ANI, Arbcom cases, policy making, etc). What's the reason for your choice?

A: While I take part in the discussions in some of these areas as an experienced editor, I haven't imposed my judgement by making any closures. Partly it's because I am somewhat timid, but also many of the debates seem interminable and petty, and there are so many articles in need of improvement that I lose interest and wander off before I read to the end of the threads.

What do you find most challenging or difficult about being an admin?

A: I've been in a few unpleasant discussions with editors whose contributions I've deleted, but actually I have found more stress in dealing with editors who don't agree with my regular edits than with my admin edits.

What do you find easiest, or most pleasing about being an admin?

A: I like being able to fix my own problems instead of having to ask for help, and to deal with technical issues such as page moves, history merges and revdels. I value being able to see deleted content when contributing to discussions.

Have you ever been the target of harassment or PA? How do you perceive some of the claims that the non-admin community is generally hostile towards sysops?

A: I have occasionally received negative attention from other editors; most of the time I have been able to defuse this through discussion. I don't think my admin edits have been more criticized than my regular edits. Twice I have received nasty emails from editors who found my personal website and email address online, and for a while I was being impersonated by someone who was trying to solicit money for COI edits. I haven't noticed general hostility towards me personally as an admin. I have seen some cases where admins, while making correct judgements, expressed themselves in a patronizing or dismissive way instead of displaying patience and trying to be helpful; I know this makes me feel hostile, so it's not surprising that it has this effect on non-admins, especially since some of them are very experienced and capable editors.

Anything else you would like to add?

A: I feel a bit guilty about not using my admin tools more frequently; I'll try to help out more with the backlogs in the future.

Xaosflux

In which areas do you mainly or normally use your admin tools? (such as deletion/undeletion, blocking, page protection, revdel, PERM, etc.). What's the reason for your choice?

A: You can often find me at WP:PERM, CAT:EP, the MediaWiki namespace, Edit Filter Management, WP:RFPI, WT:MMS. We have safeguards in place to protect the integrity of the project, but sometimes they necessitate blocking content improvement. I find that many of these areas serve as important processes for managing that balance, but require administrative consideration to avoid problems for other editors and readers. I'm dedicated to the project's goals of getting information to our readers and find these are some of the best administrative areas to help support that.

In what areas, if any, do you regularly exercise non-tool admin judgement? (such as debate closures, RfA, AN, ANI, Arbcom cases, policy making, etc). What's the reason for your choice?

A: WP:MFD and CAT:CSD whenever closing something as Keep or declining a speedy. While the WP:NAC process exists, it has its limits.

What do you find most challenging or difficult about being an admin?

A: Taking breaks! There is always so much work to do, any admins reading this that has time, please stop by WP:ADMINBACKLOG!

What do you find easiest, or most pleasing about being an admin?

A: Processing non-controversial protected page requests; especially on article you get to see that there are so many people wanting to make improvements even in a pile of people that are arguing.

Have you ever been the target of harassment or PA? How do you perceive some of the claims that the non-admin community is generally hostile towards sysop's?

A: Nothing serious, but anytime you protect the wrong version or block a vandal, expect someone to complain.

MER-C

In which areas do you mainly or normally use your admin tools? (such as deletion/undeletion, blocking, page protection, revdel, PERM, etc.). What's the reason for your choice?

A: I mainly do anti-spam work (both article and external link spam) and detecting and removing copyright violations. This involves deletion, blocking, the spam blacklist, page protection and revision deletion. I can't remember the exact details of why I got into these areas (an extension of anti-vandal work I did way back when). It stuck because there were relatively few editors doing that work and because it provided an intellectual challenge. I also scrutinize unblock appeals on-wiki.

In what areas, if any, do you regularly exercise non-tool admin judgement? (such as debate closures, RfA, AN, ANI, Arbcom cases, policy making, etc). What's the reason for your choice?

A: I've been involved in debate closure in the past. Unfortunately anti-spam takes up a greater amount of my free time nowadays.

What do you find most challenging or difficult about being an admin?

A: Lack of support from the WMF for abuse mitigation, especially in software development, harassment safety nets and legal followup against persistent long term abusers. It is quite evident that a subset of the tools are derelict and no longer fit for purpose. Trying to do anything with deleted content except to restore it is either a nightmare or straight up impossible. Sockfarms like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ugur none should be impossible to create. I am fortunate to be able to write my own software; who knows how much spam would have made it into the encyclopedia otherwise.

What do you find easiest, or most pleasing about being an admin?

A: Being an admin allows me to deal with spam more effectively -- both in terms of finding abuse (being able to look at deleted pages) and dealing with it comprehensively (deleting, blocking and blacklisting). My comparative advantage is in technical matters and anti-spam, not writing. Routine activities are easy, but volume makes them repetitive.

Have you ever been the target of harassment or PA? How do you perceive some of the claims that the non-admin community is generally hostile towards sysop's?

A: Yes, but rarely, usually from a disgruntled spammer. The problem is that there aren't very many safeguards if you get very unlucky. I don't get many complaints from non-admin content editors.
Adminship does not have to be a time sink. You can pitch in half an hour each day and still make a large impact, and just like any volunteer, only do whatever you are comfortable with. We want you around for the long haul.

Worm That Turned

In which areas do you mainly or normally use your admin tools? (such as deletion/undeletion, blocking, page protection, revdel, PERM, etc.). What's the reason for your choice?

A: I rarely use admin tools what-so-ever. I currently only hold the mop "just in case" and to help with my ArbCom work - being able to see deleted edits is essential, and so I expect I'll be handing it back in when I finish on the committee.

In what areas, if any, do you regularly exercise non-tool admin judgement? (such as debate closures, RfA, AN, ANI, Arbcom cases, policy making, etc). What's the reason for your choice?

A: I'm a current Arbitration Committee member, so I regularly exercise judgement on cases. That said, I don't see that I necessarily need the tools for this, but seeing deleted information does give me a more complete picture

What do you find most challenging or difficult about being an admin?

A: I believe admins should hold themselves to a higher standard, so biting your tongue and not rising to the snark and attitude you can see throughout Wikipedia. I suppose that working out the cost:benefit analysis of blocking is not easy - blocking can lead to an editor being disenfranchised, while not blocking can lead to the community degrading.

What do you find easiest, or most pleasing about being an admin?

A: I don't really think there's a lot "pleasing" about being an admin. It's not really that big a deal.

Have you ever been the target of harassment or PA? How do you perceive some of the claims that the non-admin community is generally hostile towards sysop's?

A: Yes. I'm one of the least confrontational admins out there, I do very little, and yes, even I have made my share of annoyed users. There are some who do tar all admins with the same brush, but that's not the general problem - more common are people who assign motives to your actions which may not exist. And in this semi-anonymous environment, we do find that people are more like to act unpleasantly towards you.

Anything else you would like to add?

A: I'm almost certainly not a typical admin, and so may not be the best for this interview!

Ritchie333

In which areas do you mainly or normally use your admin tools? (such as deletion/undeletion, blocking, page protection, revdel, PERM, etc.). What's the reason for your choice?

A: I primarily work in deletion / undeletion, because I believe good judgement here is vital to the health of the project. It's most new users' first experience with administrator activities. I occasionally wander into page protection and anti-vandalism in response to backlogs. I don't go anywhere near UAA or SPI.

In what areas, if any, do you regularly exercise non-tool admin judgement? (such as debate closures, RfA, AN, ANI, Arbcom cases, policy making, etc). What's the reason for your choice?

A: I have nominated over 15 candidates at RfA and regularly give opinions. Simply put, getting new RfA candidates helps reduce backlogs and improve morale. I occasionally participate on ANI and on talk page disputes where I identify somebody as being a potentially valuable contributor despite not being familiar with Wikipedia policies (eg: Talk:Pink Floyd: Live at Pompeii#Questionable sources - though that's more as an editor than an admin).

What do you find most challenging or difficult about being an admin?

A: I have strong opinions on administrator conduct and responsibility, particularly regarding blocks and bans, and frequently get disillusioned with admins whose views fly totally in the face of mine. Examples: Was blocking a longstanding admin and 'crat for a week, causing their resignation, really necessary for the good of the project? It's not like we can easily replace them. My definition of "spam" stems from this page, which describes it as "the same thing lots and lots of times". A stupid page about some hedge fund that nobody (to an approximation) will ever read is not "the same thing lots and lots of times". Nor does it particularly strain the network and disk space, certainly when you compared to what Usenet servers put up (or had to put up) with.

What do you find easiest, or most pleasing about being an admin?

A: The easiest is working at AIV, which just about anyone can do. The most pleasing is overturning a deletion decision and turning the article around to DYK / GA status.

Have you ever been the target of harassment or PA? How do you perceive some of the claims that the non-admin community is generally hostile towards sysop's?

A: Well you can't please all the people all of the time and I do get criticised strongly for some stuff, but I don't feel harassed or attacked by any of that - on a website this big and diverse, agreeing with everyone is impossible. I do read the odd Wikipedia criticism site (naming no names) and most of it seems to be fair comment as far as I'm concerned. Regarding hostility, I find the maxim of "treat others how you would expect to be treated" works well. People tend not to sound off about admins for no reason whatsoever, and if you lend them a sounding board instead of letting the door not hit them on the way out, the aggression can dissipate. I realise as a middle-aged white male, I'm not in the typical target demographic for harassment, and fully appreciate other groups suffer from this.

Diannaa

In which areas do you mainly or normally use your admin tools? (such as deletion/undeletion, blocking, page protection, revdel, PERM, etc.). What's the reason for your choice?

A: I've been focusing on copyright clean-up via the CopyPatrol interface. This takes anywhere from two to five hours per day, consuming most of my editing day. I help maintain the WP:CP page and resolve cases when I have time, and am currently working on reducing the backlog of cases at Category:All copied and pasted articles and sections and Category:AfC submissions declined as copyright violations. I usually clean out User:AnomieBOT III/Broken redirects/Userspace once a day or at a minimum every couple days. These areas were chosen based on a clear need for people to work in these areas. There's very few people working on copyright cleanup in particular.

In what areas, if any, do you regularly exercise non-tool admin judgement? (such as debate closures, RfA, AN, ANI, Arbcom cases, policy making, etc). What's the reason for your choice?

A: I don't participate much in any of these areas, as I don't seem to be very good at assessing consensus.

What do you find most challenging or difficult about being an admin?

A: Focusing on admin tasks means less time for improving articles. That's the work I will look back on with pride - bringing important articles to GA. So it's kinda sad that there's no time to do that any more.

What do you find easiest, or most pleasing about being an admin?

A: On the other hand, writing is hard. 'I hate writing, I love having written.' - Dorothy Parker

Have you ever been the target of harassment or PA? How do you perceive some of the claims that the non-admin community is generally hostile towards sysops?

A: I don't appreciate the random hostility that certain users express on noticeboards. While some admins have been bad actors in the past, the admin corps nowadays is a lot more caring and responsive to the way users indicate they wish the site to be run, and seems to be improving all the time. See Wikipedia:Old Fashioned Wikipedian Values for a summary of behaviour that is easy to follow and works well for me. Occasionally people get very angry at things I have to do (or occasionally over mistakes I have made) but I find that keeping my comments fact-based and direct and not responding to personal attacks or trying to defend myself works well to calm people down.

KrakatoaKatie

In which areas do you mainly or normally use your admin tools? (such as deletion/undeletion, blocking, page protection, revdel, PERM, etc.). What's the reason for your choice?

A: I've done it all, but blocking, page protection, oversight, and permissions (not necessarily at PERM, though I do that as well) are the usual suspects these days. I hate that reading the volume of email that Arbcom gets cuts so much into the time and energy I have available to spend working on the things I enjoy.

In what areas, if any, do you regularly exercise non-tool admin judgement? (such as debate closures, RfA, AN, ANI, Arbcom cases, policy making, etc). What's the reason for your choice?

A: Arbcom takes the bulk of that right now, along with some uncomplicated behavioral investigations at SPI. I have closed RFCs in the past and the odd ANI thread, but I don't do that now in case something related to a thread comes before the committee. I've also nominated several candidates for RFA; all have passed.

What do you find most challenging or difficult about being an admin?

A: The perception that we can do more than we can to help (see: content disputes) and that there's some ego trip that goes along with this gig. I get paid the same as everybody else. If people don't want me to do this anymore, I have knitting to do. ;-)

What do you find easiest, or most pleasing about being an admin?

A: I like being able to protect the project, but the best part is the ability to help someone who needs technical help, or just to be a big sister to lean on. :-)

Have you ever been the target of harassment or PA? How do you perceive some of the claims that the non-admin community is generally hostile towards sysop's?

A: Some mild personal attacks come with the mop. Mine mainly come in the form of a couple of sockmasters making new accounts with stupid usernames that involve sexual acts with other admins. Hey, people don't like to be told what they don't want to hear, so the reaction to that is part and parcel of the deal. I don't think the non-admin community is necessarily hostile to admins, but I do think they're wary. It only takes one bad admin interaction to taint one's experience, and to assume that we're all a bunch of hard-asses. I've not had off-wiki harassment; my attitude toward that is pretty well known but that may be because I'm older than many of the editors I encounter, plus I'm better connected in the law enforcement community than most.

Anything else you would like to add?

A: There's worthwhile work to be done here, and if you're willing to do it, we're a fairly close-knit group that likes to help each other. That's not the same as being a cabal, though we do like to wear rouge. ;-)

Beeblebrox

In which areas do you mainly or normally use your admin tools? (such as deletion/undeletion, blocking, page protection, revdel, PERM, etc.). What's the reason for your choice?

A:I move around a lot, I find it keeps things interesting and engaging, but on the whole I work the most at UAA and PERM. UAA is fairly fast paced, with a few dozen reports every day, and I’ve been working there on-and-off for a very long time so I can usually come in and clear out any backlogs fairly quickly. There is also an educational aspect as a lot of times we see reports there that indicate the reporting user doesn’t understand or is not aware of certain aspects of the policy, reporting of ORGNAME violations from accounts who have not actually edited is a particular practice I have tried to curb as much as possible. I started responding at PERM several years ago as a kind of “feel good” thing where usually the worst thing that will happen is you have to say no, but most of the time you are improving someone’s Wikipedia experience for them.

In what areas, if any, do you regularly exercise non-tool admin judgement? (such as debate closures, RfA, AN, ANI, Arbcom cases, policy making, etc). What's the reason for your choice?

A:I sometimes close discussions listed at ANRFC or at the village pumps. Often this is merely the result of seeing the discussion and reading it before commenting, only to find that there is already a clear consensus and my input won’t change it, so it’s probably ready to close.

What do you find most challenging or difficult about being an admin?

A:Avoiding burnout. If you confine yourself to one area, it can easily end up being exactly the same thing, day after day.

What do you find easiest, or most pleasing about being an admin?

A:Being able to deal with small problems quickly and efficiently, whether you spot them yourself or someone brings them up at noticeboard.

Have you ever been the target of harassment or PA? How do you perceive some of the claims that the non-admin community is generally hostile towards sysop's?

A:No never. Oh, except for about a hundred and fifty times. The community is a mixed bag, I don’t think non-admins as a whole are openly hostile towards us, but such persons certainly do exist. I believe in most of these cases it is either because they have run into some really bad acting admins or because they themselves cause problems and admins have had to deal with them, or in some cases a combination of both.

Anything else you would like to add?

A:As always when discussing adminship I’d like to mention that it is not some all-powerful position of godlike authority. When you’ve deleted a few thousand pages of the same promotional garbage you begin to understand that it really is just keeping the place clean.

TonyBallioni

In which areas do you mainly or normally use your admin tools? (such as deletion/undeletion, blocking, page protection, revdel, PERM, etc.). What's the reason for your choice?

A: I’m a bit of an all-rounder, but PERM, revdel, and SPI/COIN are the areas I do most of my work with the tools (my numbers elsewhere are overstated largely because of the SPI work)

In what areas, if any, do you regularly exercise non-tool admin judgement? (such as debate closures, RfA, AN, ANI, Arbcom cases, policy making, etc). What's the reason for your choice?

A: I do a lot of work with COI and paid editing and I get a lot of questions on and off-wiki on how to deal with it. I also am generally interested in policy reform efforts and try to work with people to keep our policies up to date with current practice.

What do you find most challenging or difficult about being an admin?

A: People will frequently ask you to weigh in on disputes they are having with other editors. I generally try to be a neutral party, and provide general advice and point people where they can get more specific feedback. Being neutral is very important to maintaining community trust from all areas of the community, which I think is important.

What do you find easiest, or most pleasing about being an admin?

A: I really enjoy working in revdel, from copyvio to actions that protect privacy. It’s one of the few things we do that has the potential to help people in their real lives (protecting copyrights and privacy), which I find very satisfying.

Have you ever been the target of harassment or PA? How do you perceive some of the claims that the non-admin community is generally hostile towards sysop's?

A: Yes. A few off-wiki sites aren’t fans, and a few LTAs don’t like me. Not a big deal, but it can get annoying on occasion. I tend to have very good relationships with most sectors of the community and have never really felt any hostility from the overwhelming majority of community members. Some people don’t trust admins, but I do my best to show them I can be trusted.

Kudpung

In which areas do you mainly or normally use your admin tools? (such as deletion/undeletion, blocking, page protection, revdel, PERM, etc.). What's the reason for your choice?

A: I spread myself fairly evenly. I have phases of concentrating on one or two areas for a few months or even years. I held the fort at at PERM for a long time while there was little interest being shown by other admins, but mainly to process requests quickly before the NAC folks could get in and turn the place into a mini RfA until MusicAnimal made his magic moderator bot. I block a lot of vandals because I see them on my watchlist quicker than they get reported at AIV - especially school articles which I also often have to protect for short periods. I still patrol new pages so I delete articles that I come across in the feed that have already been CSD'd.

In what areas, if any, do you regularly exercise non-tool admin judgement? (such as debate closures, RfA, AN, ANI, Arbcom cases, policy making, etc). What's the reason for your choice?

A: Hard to say. I rarely chime in at ANI these days, it's the same old, same old, and mostly overrun by non-admins and NAC. I think there was a WMF report about it recently. Kudos to the handful of admins who still regularly work there such as Beeblebrox, Boing, and Drmies and a couple of others. I watch most Arbcom cases very closely but I rarely comment there because like ANI, I think there are too many comments from uninvolved editors (usually the same ones) who simply think it's cool to comment there. More specifically, I watch what the Arbs themselves are saying because I don't always agree with their comments - and although I never say anything, it's usually the same comittee member(s) I'm at odds with. I vote on every RfA of course. I take part in a lot of new policy making; whenever it is successful I like to think I've helped make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia and a better place to work.

What do you find most challenging or difficult about being an admin?

A: Keeping my mouth shut and my tools in the box when people piss me off. I find it really hard sometimes to let them have the last word, but I usually do. It's unbelievable how stubborn and/or nasty some people can be. Some people just don't reaalise that admins, just like all other genuine editors, are unpaid volunteers.

What do you find easiest, or most pleasing about being an admin?

A: I can't say that I really enjoy being an admin. It keeps me involved with Wikipedia at a time where I have run out of ideas for content creation and where I get quickly bored with routine tasks such as copyediting, page patrolling, and finishing articles for lazy editors. However, I suppose I do like the forensics that come with the admin tools and a good knowledge of policies, things like sniffing out socks and paid editors. Easiest is deciding whether or not to delete articles tagged CSD, and closing AfDs, because I think I've got a good memory for notability and deletion criteria. I get a lot of requests for help from new editors and even new admins and it's nice to be able to explain things to them nicely. I get satisfaction from being able to resolve disputes before they escalate. I like being able to unblock editors following a successful appeaI (but it's rare). I get some satisfaction when I've been able to force a persistent spammer or undeclared paid editor to desist. I naturally feel a sense of pride when people come to me for advice or help that only an admin can provide; I think we all do.

Have you ever been the target of harassment or PA? How do you perceive some of the claims that the non-admin community is generally hostile towards sysop's?

A: Yes, both on and off Wki but possibly not as much as some admins who are also simply doing their job. On-Wiki it mainly comes from trolls, but the deliberate off-Wiki stuff on the Wikipedia hate sites can be particularly distressing. Any admin who is going to work in the trenches is going to have to put up with it. I don't think the non-admin users are generally hostile towards admins but there definiteley used to be a significant number of recurring names that revelled in every opportunity to trip an admin up. In the past I've loosely referred to them as the 'anti-admin brigade' - indeed in the past their attacks have clearly been coordxinated but since some of the major actors have retired, calmed down, or been blocked, it's very much less acute than it used to be.

DGG

In which areas do you mainly or normally use your admin tools? (such as deletion/undeletion, blocking, page protection, revdel, PERM, etc.). What's the reason for your choice?

A: At my AfD 11 years ago , I said I wanted it to check deleted articles to see which ones could be rescued. At that time in WP, the problem was that we were still trying to establish a less erratic deletion policy, and the main thing I worked on was notability. Now, the main problem is promotionalism, and I use the tools mainly to remove the promotional articles and deal with the coi editors. ..

In what areas, if any, do you regularly exercise non-tool admin judgement? (such as debate closures, RfA, AN, ANI, Arbcom cases, policy making, etc). What's the reason for your choice?

A: I'm active in many policy discussions, so I usually don't close them; I have always avoided AN and ANI. I'm currently on arb com, trying to bring the committee the perspective of someone whose WP experience is not mainly enforcement and dispute resolution.

What do you find most challenging or difficult about being an admin?

A: The need to work at high speed, while getting it right: I estimate I still make about 2% errors; I think no admin who is very active can do better than 1%.

What do you find easiest, or most pleasing about being an admin?

A: None of it is exactly easy, but the greatest satisfaction is when I am able to teach a newcomer how to work in our system, and they then develop into a valuable WPedian.

Have you ever been the target of harassment or PA? How do you perceive some of the claims that the non-admin community is generally hostile towards sysop's?

A: I've never been the target of significant harassment; the relatively few personal attacks on me have been either the work of those illegitimate editors whom I have successfully stopped, or those who misunderstand; the first are in a sense tributes, the second I can usually satisfy with my explanations, even if they continue to disagree. The only part that is disappointing is when someone I otherwise respect gets so upset at a particular natter where we disagree, that they decide I'm an enemy in everything. Much of the hostility towards sysops that I see is due to their failure to give full explanations, and in some cases, it might even be well deserved.

Anything else you would like to add?

A: Working effectively here as an admin or an editor requires an acknowledgment of the inherent nature of WP. Achieving much here takes patience and persistence.

Cullen328

In which areas do you mainly or normally use your admin tools? (such as deletion/undeletion, blocking, page protection, revdel, PERM, etc.). What's the reason for your choice?

A:I am most active in speedy deletions these days although I continue with many of my editing interests from the days before I became an administrator. As an active Teahouse host, the ability to view deleted content gives me a better ability to advise editors who are wondering why their contributions were deleted. I block disruptive editors when I encounter them. I do not search them out. Similarly, I semi-protect articles when I see obvious disruption, but I do not actively patrol that area. I issue warnings and try to turn disruptive editors into productive editors. Hope springs eternal.

In what areas, if any, do you regularly exercise non-tool admin judgement? (such as debate closures, RfA, AN, ANI, Arbcom cases, policy making, etc). What's the reason for your choice?

A: I have continued my activity at places like RfA, ANI, AN and similar discussions. I try to be productive, concise and direct, and try to avoid the "wall of text" give and take.

What do you find most challenging or difficult about being an admin?

A: Not much, except for the constant reminders that many other administrators are far more productive than I am. I am a "slow worker" and often find that another administrator has blocked a disruptor before I have read the evidence.

What do you find easiest, or most pleasing about being an admin?

A: I admit that am proud that the editing community gave me the power to carry out adminstrative actions, and if my work is a little bit more productive as a result, I am gratified.

Have you ever been the target of harassment or PA? How do you perceive some of the claims that the non-admin community is generally hostile towards sysop's?

A:I have experienced severe off-Wiki harassment and death threats as an editor, for my work on biographies of criminals. As an administrator, I have experienced some snark and assumptions of bad faith. I do not think that the average productive long term editor is hostile toward administrators. But we have our squeaky wheels for sure.

Oshwah

In which areas do you mainly or normally use your admin tools? (such as deletion/undeletion, blocking, page protection, revdel, PERM, etc.). What's the reason for your choice?

A: Blocking (AIV, UAA, ANI, SPI), page deletions (CSD), protection of pages (RFPP), and other areas as needed while performing RCP. The reason I'm involved in these areas the most as an administrator is because these are the areas that I've handled and contributed to the most over the years before I was an admin. It's what I enjoy doing when I contribute here, which I find is the most important reason to volunteer in the first place :-).

In what areas, if any, do you regularly exercise non-tool admin judgement? (such as debate closures, RfA, AN, ANI, Arbcom cases, policy making, etc). What's the reason for your choice?

A: Outside of adminship, I'll comment on ANI cases , create discussions at AN over topics and findings that I find are important and that all admins should take a look at, help new and confused editors on my user talk page or in other areas where help is asked for, process account requests at ACC, and once in awhile I'll write an essay page on something I feel is important and missing leadership, advice, or coverage over.

What do you find most challenging or difficult about being an admin?

A: The aspect of adminship that I find can be the most challenging is communicating with users when they feel that they've been blocked unfairly, are upset, and demand an explanation. I want my responses in these situations to calm the user down, explain the policy, help them to understand where they went wrong, still want to contribute to the project, and move on from the situation positively. It's not easy to do, but I always try and do my damn best each time I'm faced with the situation.

What do you find easiest, or most pleasing about being an admin?

A: Locating and identifying users who are here to vandalize articles, harass other users, cause disruption in a malicious fashion, or users who have been doing so for a long time - and handle the problem swiftly and with any disruption reverted or resolved as quickly as possible.

Have you ever been the target of harassment or PA? How do you perceive some of the claims that the non-admin community is generally hostile towards sysop's?

A: All the time. I'm the butt of threats, harassment, attempted outing, and trolling almost daily... multiple times a day. While I feel that most of our community understands that administrators are not perfect and will make mistakes, they believe and understand that we're here to help and do the best that we can, I also feel that there are a significant number of editors who don't like administrators at all, will act, react, and communicate differently towards users because they are administrators, and have feelings of negativity towards administrators and feel much differently than the others. While a small portion of them may feel this way due to outside factors and possibly feeling disheartened from failing the RFA process, I feel that many (if not most of them) feel this way because they had a negative experience with one - and many of those were to reasons that are legitimate or our fault. We as administrators often make judgment calls, engage and communicate with editors, and perform administrative actions that directly affect editors, and we as administrators are the ones who set the example with how policy should be followed, how to communicate with one another and in a respectful and helpful tone, and how to handle situations with care and good judgment. When we make mistakes, exercise bad judgment, use our tools when involved, communicate with users in an authoritative, scolding, uncivil, or rude manner (i.e. "I'm and admin and you're not"), or cause serious issues or disruption - it doesn't just leave a bad mark on the admin who did this, it leaves a bad mark on all administrators. For this reason, I find the general hostility that some users express to be completely understandable.

Anything else you would like to add?

A: Adminship isn't for everyone, and I feel that above all else that admins should possess and demonstrate a completely solid level of experience in helping new users, communicating in a completely respectful and civil matter toward others - even when they act chippy, disrespectful, or outright belligerent or threatening towards you, owning up for your mistakes and admitting and apologizing when you make a mistake or are wrong, and with interpreting evidence and taking action in a completely neutral manner. Above all else, it should be something you enjoy... otherwise, what's the point? :-)

Bagumba

In which areas do you mainly or normally use your admin tools? (such as deletion/undeletion, blocking, page protection, revdel, PERM, etc.). What's the reason for your choice?

A: I mainly use tools to protect pages and occasionally to block users. I am not active patrolling noticeboards, and most of my admin actions are based on issues encountered though my normal editing and pages I add to my watchlist.

In what areas, if any, do you regularly exercise non-tool admin judgement? (such as debate closures, RfA, AN, ANI, Arbcom cases, policy making, etc). What's the reason for your choice?

A: I only close XfDs on occasion, and might occasionally close a noticeboard discussion in the rare instances that I was already on the page because I was making a report on an issue that I was WP:INVOLVED in. Sort of a quid pro quo.

What do you find most challenging or difficult about being an admin?

A: I edit mostly on American sports topics, which typically might have only 2 or 3 editors engaged in a discussion. Sometimes I choose not to not comment on an issue if I sense I might have greater value staying uninvolved and be able to moderate (or in extreme cases, use a tool-related remedy). A lot of users (for one reason or another) don't reach out for help, use WP:DR, or deal with noticeboards. The downside, however, is risking lack of consensus in the discussion.

What do you find easiest, or most pleasing about being an admin?

A: Being able to use the tool in areas I actively edit without the overhead of needing to provide extensive background to an uninvolved admin, who also might not be familiar with the nuances of the domain.

Have you ever been the target of harassment or PA? How do you perceive some of the claims that the non-admin community is generally hostile towards sysop's?

A: I've been occasionally been the target of my user page being vandalized or having accounts created with derogatory variations of my usernames. Knock on wood, it's been relatively tame, but then I'm not active on noticeboards, and I anyways try to be diplomatic and non-confrontational. I believe there is a small segment of admins who are more apt to ignite instead of diffuse incidents, but they typically get the benefit of the doubt and their actions are excused as being within "admin discretion". I've probably received PAs, but I'm tolerant of foul language in real life, and don't have a power trip.

JamesBWatson

In which areas do you mainly or normally use your admin tools? (such as deletion/undeletion, blocking, page protection, revdel, PERM, etc.). What's the reason for your choice?

A: Blocking vandals and spammers (I regularly check AIV). Speedy deletion in certain categories such as G11, G12, G5, U5, though there are other categories I far less often touch, such as A7 because I find it far too subjective to be happy about. Another admin area where I spend a lot of time but unfortunately don't use admin tools very often is requests for unblock. That is because I really do believe in giving blocked editors another chance if possible, so I go along in the hope of being able to unblock, but in the overwhelming majority of cases the block is fully justified, plus even when I think the editor should be unblocked I often encounter opposition from other admins so I reluctantly give way to consensus. My contributions in other admin areas are on a spectrum from quite often to never, but those I have mentioned are probably the ones I spend most time on. Reasons for my choice? I don't tend to consciouly think of reasons, I just do what I do, but thinking of it now I suppose I do things that seem to me important. Some editor or other getting rollback right is no doubt significant to that editor, but I can't feel as stongly that it really needs attention as stopping a persistent vandal.

In what areas, if any, do you regularly exercise non-tool admin judgement? (such as debate closures, RfA, AN, ANI, Arbcom cases, policy making, etc). What's the reason for your choice?

A: I don't think I regularly do any of those. I occasionally take decisions at ANI when some incident takes me there, but I never patrol there to look for cases to deal with, because I find so much of what goes on there negative and unconstructive. Policy making I very occasionally take part in, but not often because I think that the growth of policies over the years is the worst change that has ever happened to Wikipedia. Far better off to have a handful of basic principles than a lot of detailed policies.

What do you find most challenging or difficult about being an admin?

A: Hmm. A challenging and difficult question to answer. Not sure off hand. However, one of the most dificult is dealing with unblock requests where an editor seems to be saying the right things but I'm unsure whther they are being sincere. Either keeping a deserving editor blocked undeservedly or unblocking a devious lying manipulator with a gift for sweet-sounding rhetoric is such an undesirable outcome that it can be very painful to have to make the call.

What do you find easiest, or most pleasing about being an admin?

A: Easiest and most pleasing are very different for me. Most pleasing is unblocking editors to give them another chance. That really really is the part of my work as an administrator that I like best, but for the reason I have given above in answer to question one I find it anything but easy. Easiest is probably blocking blatant spammers. However, by that I don't mean people who do the kind of editing most commonly called "spam" in Wikipedia, i.e. good faith new editors who come here sincerely not realising that creating an article to publicise their company/band/self/whatever is not acceptable. I do block those, but it's sometimes hard to do so. The easy ones are the far smaller number who post real spam.

Have you ever been the target of harassment or PA? How do you perceive some of the claims that the non-admin community is generally hostile towards sysop's?

A: (a) Yes, I have, countless times, which I suppose is a natural consequence of dealing with vandalism and speedy deletion, but it's been a very small proportion of my overall experience. (b) The vast majority of the community is not hostile towards administrators at all, but there's a small minority of people who are, and some of them make attacking administrators a major focus of their activity. They are therefore disproportionately prominent in situations where criticisng administrators might take place, thus sometimes giving the impression that the anti-admin feeling is more general than it really is.

Anything else you would like to add?

A: Only that, contrary to what a lot of non-admins think, being an administrator is not much about having more power, much more about spending time on routine cleanup work and therefore having less time available to do constructive editing, which is what I (and probably all of us) came here to do.

MelanieN

In which areas do you mainly or normally use your admin tools? (such as deletion/undeletion, blocking, page protection, revdel, PERM, etc.). What's the reason for your choice?

A: I am primarily a content editor and a content admin. The areas I regularly patrol are RFPP and speedy deletion. I revert vandalism, block vandals, and revdel only when I happen across the need, or when someone calls it to my attention.

In what areas, if any, do you regularly exercise non-tool admin judgement? (such as debate closures, RfA, AN, ANI, Arbcom cases, policy making, etc). What's the reason for your choice?

A: Aside from commenting at RfA I really don’t do much of this. I avoid the drama boards as much as possible. I participate a lot at contentious articles like those related to Donald Trump, where I am sometimes described as "the grownup in the room". I participate as regular editor due to being INVOLVED, but they still know I am an admin, and I think that may help to keep things from getting out of hand.

What do you find most challenging or difficult about being an admin?

A: Since I limit my admin work to areas and tasks I enjoy, I don’t find it difficult or challenging.

What do you find easiest, or most pleasing about being an admin?

A: I like being able to solve problems for editors, such as protecting pages. (Protecting pages generates a lot of “thank” messages - probably the only area of admin work for which you get thanked.) I must confess I kind of like the deference that is sometimes offered to me because of my mop.

Have you ever been the target of harassment or PA? How do you perceive some of the claims that the non-admin community is generally hostile towards sysop's?

A: I have not found a hostile attitude toward me, and I am rarely the target of harassment. That is probably because I don’t do much dealing with vandals and socks. I certainly do see such attacks regularly on the talk pages of admins who are active in those areas.

Anything else you would like to add?

A: I enjoy being an admin, although most of my time on Wikipedia is still spent on content work.

MusikAnimal

In which areas do you mainly or normally use your admin tools? (such as deletion/undeletion, blocking, page protection, revdel, PERM, etc.). What's the reason for your choice?

A: Blocking, page protection, abuse filter management, and other counter-vandalism areas. I also sometimes dabble with technical matters such as admins scripts and gadgets.

In what areas, if any, do you regularly exercise non-tool admin judgement? (such as debate closures, RfA, AN, ANI, Arbcom cases, policy making, etc). What's the reason for your choice?

A: Slim to none. I tend to stay away from the dramaboards. It's great some admins are willing (or want) to work there, it's important, but just not for me. I'm more of a quiet, independent admin who enjoys casual patrolling. You will see me chime in on discussions here and there, such RfA and proposed policy changes, but I don't think I've ever done any formal debate closures.

What do you find most challenging or difficult about being an admin?

A: Not too much to complain about. The nature of my work means I don't get much backlash (except from the vandals :). I guess there's still room for improvement on admin tooling. Some abuse is just impossible to stop.

What do you find easiest, or most pleasing about being an admin?

A: Simple patrolling and responding to reports at AIV, RFPP, etc., is pretty gratifying to me. It keeps the project afoot, keeps me occupied, and as I said above, it's mostly uncontroversial. I like to think of me as a behind-the-scenes kind of guy, who if I (along with fellow admins in my field), do the work properly, the greater encyclopedia continues to grow without any notice of the volume of abuse we are dealing with.

Have you ever been the target of harassment or PA? How do you perceive some of the claims that the non-admin community is generally hostile towards sysop's?

A: No comment.

Primefac

In which areas do you mainly or normally use your admin tools? (such as deletion/undeletion, blocking, page protection, revdel, PERM, etc.). What's the reason for your choice?

A: Deletion (mainly TFD, G12, G13, and OS-related material) - I started on TFD work before I became an admin (See Q2), and sorta stuck with it. G12 is copyvios, and I've gotten pretty good at catching them (and false positives), G13 because I coordinate AFC, and OS because... I do that.

Revdel (due to copyvios)

PERM (specifically TPE, AWB, PGM) since I'm heavily involved in those three areas as an admin

Occasionally I'll protect something, but that's usually because someone requests it on IRC or I find out about a war through talk page stalking and/or OTRS tickets

In what areas, if any, do you regularly exercise non-tool admin judgement? (such as debate closures, RfA, AN, ANI, Arbcom cases, policy making, etc). What's the reason for your choice?

A: It's mostly time-dependent; I close TFDs regularly and easy-closed AN threads on a regular basis (the former because I like templates and have been working at TFD since before I had the mop). If I have time I'll peruse ANRFC and see if there's anything that needs doing; I've gotten really good at being neutral and objectively weighing the arguments in discussions.

What do you find most challenging or difficult about being an admin?

A: Explaining why I've done something. The explanation isn't necessarily difficult, but attempting to demonstrate to someone that what I've done is proper and completely within the bounds of what an admin should do (especially when they just are complaining and are refusing to listen) is frustrating at times.

What do you find easiest, or most pleasing about being an admin?

A: I honestly don't know, I've never really thought about it. I mean, d-batching pages via Twinkle is nice, but I don't really do it all that often except by request.

Have you ever been the target of harassment or PA? How do you perceive some of the claims that the non-admin community is generally hostile towards sysop's?

A: I've been chewed out by people for performing an admin action (see Q3) and I think everyone gets PAs thrown their way (certainly everyone on IRC that I chat with has been), you just go with it an move on. I think the non-admin community can be hostile towards admins, but admins can also be hostile to the non-admins. I don't think "in general" one group is hostile to the other, but I know it can be frustrating when an admin "shoots first and asks questions later", maybe choosing to block instead of warn etc. As I said, it goes both ways, and the extreme cases that turn up at AN or ANI are the exceptions rather than the rules - there are huge swathes of admins (and users) that I've never seen experience any major issues.

Alex Shih

In which areas do you mainly or normally use your admin tools? (such as deletion/undeletion, blocking, page protection, revdel, PERM, etc.). What's the reason for your choice?

A: I usually work with the Main Page, mostly promoting DYK preps to queue or (occasionally) posting ITN entries. I try to do everything else once in a while.

In what areas, if any, do you regularly exercise non-tool admin judgement? (such as debate closures, RfA, AN, ANI, Arbcom cases, policy making, etc). What's the reason for your choice?

A: Probably not that regularly, but closing discussions at AN/ANI. The reason for that is for me, it is easier to assess consensus when it involves only user conduct. Closing debates, particularly relating to content disputes or policy discussions, would be far more difficult for me unless if it is involving areas in which I am familiar with (East Asian topics).

What do you find most challenging or difficult about being an admin?

A: Dennis Brown once implied somewhere, the most difficult time would be when you are being personally attacked, but unable to take admin action when you technically could, and unable to receive assistance in time.

What do you find easiest, or most pleasing about being an admin?

A: I guess the most pleasing thing is being in a better position to help other editors.

Have you ever been the target of harassment or PA? How do you perceive some of the claims that the non-admin community is generally hostile towards sysop's?

A: I think I received some harassment from Korean nationalists after blocking them, but I thought these kind of threats were rather amusing. As for the general disconnect between admins and editors, I guess it continues to exist. I think people are generally more hostile toward admins that only do admin tasks, which cannot really be helped?

Bishonen

In which areas do you mainly or normally use your admin tools? (such as deletion/undeletion, blocking, page protection, revdel, PERM, etc.). What's the reason for your choice?

A: I mainly do the ones you mention, because people request them, with a lot of blocking from patrolling UAA and the User creation log, see Q.4.

In what areas, if any, do you regularly exercise non-tool admin judgement? (such as debate closures, RfA, AN, ANI, Arbcom cases, policy making, etc). What's the reason for your choice?

A: Discretionary sanctions (=topic bans) in the India-Pakistan-Afghanistan area, plus a bit in American politics and pseudoscience. I just happened to notice the need for it, and how under-adminned it was. Our Indian admins often edit in the IPA area, so they can't admin it much. Plus, people may well stay clear of DS generally because of the paperwork, the logs, the templates. (HINT HINT, please make it simpler, ArbCom.) It's nothing like using Twinkle, and was a big learning curve for a technical noob like me. But now I like it.

What do you find most challenging or difficult about being an admin?

A: Nothing much, really. Many admin areas are too hard for me, or uncongenial, but then I just don't work them. We don't have to do anything we don't like — it's not a job. Or well, a difficult thing is certainly that sinking feeling when I wake up in the night and realise I've probably been unfair or made a mistake. Sometimes it can be fixed, but not always.

What do you find easiest, or most pleasing about being an admin?

A: Blocking our advertisers and deleting their output is both easy and a true pleasure. It's a bit like trying to hold back the tide like the little Dutch boy, but it's satisfying all the same. And I like using the tools to support the non-admins who work in some of our most thankless areas, such as Sitush (caste promotion) and Jytdog (paid editing). That's not necessarily easy, but definitely pleasing.

Have you ever been the target of harassment or PA? How do you perceive some of the claims that the non-admin community is generally hostile towards sysop's?

A: Of course I've been heckled by people I've disobliged. Doesn't bother me. Also it's worth noting that you don't have to be an admin to be harassed and abused for trying to make Wikipedia better. (Sitush again comes to mind.) I absolutely don't think the non-admin community is generally hostile. On the contrary. There are a very few established users who have made something of a career of panning admins as a group, that's all.

Anything else you would like to add?

A: No. Good questions!

Boing! said Zebedee

In which areas do you mainly or normally use your admin tools? (such as deletion/undeletion, blocking, page protection, revdel, PERM, etc.). What's the reason for your choice?

A: Some of all of those, but mostly unblock requests these days, mainly because I like unblocking people. Renaming is a big part of it, though that's not specifically an admin tool. I delve into Speedy Deletions sometimes (though that job has definitely been a fair bit easier since ACTRIAL/ACPERM). I am trying to cut down on my admin work generally now, because I think it's inevitable that one loses one's enthusiasm for what is essentially a confrontational process.

In what areas, if any, do you regularly exercise non-tool admin judgement? (such as debate closures, RfA, AN, ANI, Arbcom cases, policy making, etc). What's the reason for your choice?

A: I try to comment on RFAs whenever I can, and I've engaged in quite a few discussions at ANI/AN, but my taste for the latter is souring (Is it just me, or are there more aggressive regulars there these days?) I try to keep away from Arbcom cases, largely because I find the, admittedly necessary, weeks-long process quite mind-numbing. I can't imagine what would possess anyone to want to be an Arb.

What do you find most challenging or difficult about being an admin?

A: I'm trying to keep away from difficult and contentious things now, because they get to be a drain over the long term. So, I'm not really doing anything particularly difficult or challenging these days. As an example, there are civility issues at ANI that in the past I might have tried to address, but these days it seems pointless trying to improve that horrible place. The Discretionary Sanctions area is one I find too complex to spend my time on - lots of rigid procedures and logs and stuff (which might be needed, but I don't get on with bureaucracy).

What do you find easiest, or most pleasing about being an admin?

A: The easiest is probably speedy deletion, because the criteria are so specific and so strict. For that reason I also decline plenty (though I'm often disappointed to see admins deleting tagged pages which they shouldn't). Most pleasing is probably unblocking someone and seeing them turn into a good contributor.

Also, reminded by reading Bish's replies above, much as I generally dislike having to block people, I do like blocking advertisers and spammers trying to parasitize on the hard work of volunteers.

Have you ever been the target of harassment or PA? How do you perceive some of the claims that the non-admin community is generally hostile towards sysop's?

A: I've had my share of petty personal attacks over the years. Perhaps the worst, and certainly the stupidest, was an off-wiki campaign to accuse me and others of being paid Brahmin activists intent on defaming hordes of innocent Indians - perhaps funny if it hadn't been so pathetically incompetent. Non-admins working in contentious subject areas get far more harassment than I ever have, so I've really got nothing to complain about. As for general hostility, no, I really don't see it. There's certainly open hostility from time to time, but I won't let a small number of loud people tarnish my respect for the vast majority of Wikipedia contributors.

Anything else you would like to add?

A: ~~Probably not, but please don't see this as complete yet. Just my first thoughts for now, and I might make changes/additions later (perhaps after reading other people's responses to give me hints ;-)~~ No, that's about it really.

RHaworth

In which areas do you mainly or normally use your admin tools? (such as deletion/undeletion, blocking, page protection, revdel, PERM, etc.). What's the reason for your choice?

A: Almost entirely doing speedy deletions from CAT:CSD with blocking and page protection to complete some jobs. Why? Each deletion is complete in itself. There is no need for ongoing monitoring and discussion as is needed if one looks after a specific article.

In what areas, if any, do you regularly exercise non-tool admin judgement? (such as debate closures, RfA, AN, ANI, Arbcom cases, policy making, etc). What's the reason for your choice?

A: None. Why? I spend enough time on speedies!

What do you find most challenging or difficult about being an admin?

A: Can't think of anything.

What do you find easiest, or most pleasing about being an admin?

A: Working on speedy deletions, I am contributing to maintaining the quality of the encyclopedia. It requires skill and judgement. Perhaps surprisingly, it offers variety: there is a complete spectrum of responses to any one case from "delete with disgust and block the perpetrator" at one extreme, through "move to draftspace" to "remove the speedy tag and reprimand the user who applied it" at the other extreme.

Shameful thing to admit: I enjoy giving supercilious replies to "why did you delete" questions on my talk page. I don't set out to be rude to people but it often seems to come out that way!

I very rarely watch TV news or read newspapers and I joke that if a news story is important, I will learn about it from the forks and similar that I get to delete. For example I had never heard of Trump camps until I saw that title in CAT:CSD.

Have you ever been the target of harassment or PA? How do you perceive some of the claims that the non-admin community is generally hostile towards sysop's?

A: Surprisingly little harassment especially considering I use my real name. Most of the abuse can be ignored because it comes from pure vandals or people who do not understand the principles of the project. "How do I perceive" - no thoughts.

Harry Mitchell

In which areas do you mainly or normally use your admin tools? (such as deletion/undeletion, blocking, page protection, revdel, PERM, etc.). What's the reason for your choice?

A: I've done a bit of almost everything at one point or another. These days I'm most likely to be found at AIV. I also try to deal with oversight requests that come in while I'm awake and not at work. Partly because of my day job and parlty because I prefer to spend what free time I have in the mainspace, I tend to focus on things that can easily be picked up and put down.

In what areas, if any, do you regularly exercise non-tool admin judgement? (such as debate closures, RfA, AN, ANI, Arbcom cases, policy making, etc). What's the reason for your choice?

A: I've closed a lot of RfCs, including some of the biggest discussions on important policies and if something crosses my watchlist that I can help with or that needs admin attention I'll do what I can. Frankly, though, I spend more time in mainspace these days. I wouldn't wish to disparage the efforts of those who work in back-end areas, but the further from the mainspace I get, the harder I find it to relate wht I'm doing to the encyclopaedia.

What do you find most challenging or difficult about being an admin?

A: In a nutshell, admin work leaves less time for article work, although it comes with it own set of challenges. The intellectual exercise of extracting a consensus from a complicated discussion can be satisfying, for example. A different type of challenge is the tools themselves. The admin toolkit has got better in recent years and has been supplemented by scripts and external tools but we still struggle to respond to vandalism sprees.

What do you find easiest, or most pleasing about being an admin?

A: It's always a nice feeling when somebody asks you for something and you're able to help, or you're able to help somebody by doing something routine that just needs an admin. And as above, I enjoy the intellectual exercises admins have to deal with sometimes.

Have you ever been the target of harassment or PA? How do you perceive some of the claims that the non-admin community is generally hostile towards sysop's?

A: Oh, many, many times. When I had more free time and was a more active admin I dealt with a lot of our less ... charming vandals. So yes, I've received abuse, some of it grotesque, but I usually take it as a sign that I'm doing something right (I'd rather they came to insult me than go somewhere where they might actually cause some damage!). As for the community, I don't think it's generally hostile to admins. In general, I think we as a community value the work our admins do to keep the wheels turning but some members of the community have negative feelings towards admins, or more accurately towards what they perceive as a specific group of admins. This is not helped by a few admins who throw their weight around, but some friction in a large community is almost inevitbale.

Drmies

In which areas do you mainly or normally use your admin tools? (such as deletion/undeletion, blocking, page protection, revdel, PERM, etc.). What's the reason for your choice?

A: Haha, what is "PERM"? I do all the others, yes. I used to go through the CSD categories but I don't do that anymore. Much of what I do follows from Recent changes. I take the BLP seriously so I do quite a bit of revdel.

In what areas, if any, do you regularly exercise non-tool admin judgement? (such as debate closures, RfA, AN, ANI, Arbcom cases, policy making, etc). What's the reason for your choice?

A: Not sure what you mean--admin but not with a tool? I participate in those things, most of those things, though less often in ArbCom cases and policy making than the other things. I'm a much more flighty and short-term editor than I used to be.

What do you find most challenging or difficult about being an admin?

A: Well, editors often expect you to act immediately on this or that. And in the last few years we are challenged more and more, it seems--or I'm just getting old.

What do you find easiest, or most pleasing about being an admin?

A: Easiest is blocking obvious vandals--you know, racists, antisemites, etc. Most pleasing--I don't know. Sometimes you can fix something, like an article history or merge, and you make an editor happy. Restoring or helping out with content is always the most fun. But usually we admins are involved in negative things, trying to fix vandalism and blocking harassers and all that, and the best you can hope for is restoring some sort of neutrality.

Have you ever been the target of harassment or PA? How do you perceive some of the claims that the non-admin community is generally hostile towards sysop's?

A: Oh yeah, plenty, but not as badly, I bet, as the female admins. No, I don't believe that last bit. I believe we don't always get respected like I think we should, but I also know that there's been plenty of us who have behaved in unacceptable ways and lost the bit as a result, so yeah.

The alternative view (Lourdes)

(Lourdes is currently not a sysop, having immediately declined to take up her tools following a very successful 2nd RfA, but we include her unsolicited responses here.)

In which areas do you mainly or normally use your admin tools? (such as deletion/undeletion, blocking, page protection, revdel, PERM, etc.). What's the reason for your choice?

A: Well, I don't get to use my admin tools, because I don't have them. The reason for my choice, you see, is that after crossing the RfA bridge on my second attempt, a quirky series of events post my RfA combined with real life professional work ensured I preferred to not go back for the bit.

In what areas, if any, do you regularly exercise non-tool admin judgement? (such as debate closures, RfA, AN, ANI, Arbcom cases, policy making, etc). What's the reason for your choice?

A: I might perhaps be the best example of non-tool quasi-admin judgement. While I've involved myself in debates at AN, ANI, AN3, I spend most of my free time at the Help desk. I find that resolving people's editorial queries is much more satisfying than commenting on acrimony-filled AN noticeboards. Now I also spend a lot of time supporting credible RfA candidates (who're anyway so less), and have engaged in much back-of-the-scenes email communication with many of them to ensure they don't end up writing stuff in their RfAs that blows up in their face. This has extended to even vetting their answers before they post the same in their RfAs (no names here, but you know them all). My command over policy and guidelines is impeccable (no, not beating my own drum; just a matter of fact). I would invite all future RfA candidates too to take my full assistance at any time – before or during the RfA – in case they're ill-at-ease understanding how to answer RfA queries.

What do you find most challenging or difficult about being an admin?

A: I'll take the liberty to change the question to: What do you find most challenging or difficult about not being an admin? Right now, the most difficult is to explain to editors why I'm not retaking the admin bit. I know the community invested an incredible amount of time in my RfA – and I do believe i'll get back to retaking the admin bit, but when my RL work resolves.

What do you find easiest, or most pleasing about ("not") being an admin?

A: The lack of any stress, and the freedom to not having to pad up my edits or be careful about what I write to others – a fear most future RfA candidates have (and I had).

Have you ever been the target of harassment or PA? How do you perceive some of the claims that the non-admin community is generally hostile towards sysop's?

A: I have never been the target of harassment or PA. Yes, the infatuation-struck email from one or the other newbie does come, which I handle with care. The non-admin community does tend to criticise, sometimes harshly, admin actions – and I've noticed a sense of "judgement has prevailed" in the actors when an admin or a bureaucrat loses his bit, which is a shame.

← Previous "Op-ed"

Next "Op-ed" →

In this issue

29 June 2018 (all comments)

Op-ed

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

Seriously, anyone who's an admin sinks by default, in my estimation. Who would put themselves into a defamatory lion's den that has amply demonstrated that it lets through appalling bad apples and gives them status and power for life? It's power that some use to the detriment of the social fabric, with the guarantee of impunity through fellow admins who will protect them by wagon-circling, shooting bullets at anyone who complains. Twisting admin policy breaches into blame-the-victim is stock in trade. If you're an honest admin, your reputation is smeared, I'm sorry to say. Tony (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe people who see stuff that needs to be done and step into the gap? WTF? ☆ Bri (talk) 02:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they want to deal with the torrent of abuse known as RfA? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of those editors who sees stuff that needs to be done and would like to step into the gap. Specifically, AfD and AIAV. But I am not willing to be abused just for the dubious privilege of volunteering my time to do something that needs to be done, plus I believe that there is a prejudice against those of us who are better at doing gnomish work than we are at creating articles. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While it's true that there is unfortunately a trend among a subset of RFA !voters to require recognized content and that back-in-the-day™ gnomes with no real content work (including yours truly) had a much higher chance to pass, I've yet to see a RFA fail just because the candidate was not a content contributor. Regards So Why 06:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my journeys through the land of Wikipedia I often see user pages with the icon "Not an administrator but would like to be one someday". Well, let's scoop up about two dozen of those ~~insane creatures~~ loyal Wikipedians and give them their wish. New blood won't hurt the corps (unless it does). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn: What's stopping you from nominating those people? Regards So Why 09:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn: a closer look are those useroxes will probably reveal that they were sometimes placed as the user's second edit. The first was to create the user page. Such userboxes often have an effect exactly opposite too what the user desired. Venturing an opinion here: Anyone who joins Wikipedia with the express intention of policing the project joined it for the wrong reason. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can only hope to some day possess this gift of seeing into the souls and intent of individuals without ever having had a conversation with them. Oh, to be so singularly brilliant and all-knowing. All hail the infallible! Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 14:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A good point I did not consider, Kudpung. Maybe put them in charge of protecting the perimeter. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You know what we don't have, but maybe we should, is a road map of an ideal admin's progress to the position. Like a career guide. Maybe it's difficult because there are so many different standards people use for voting, but maybe not impossible. It would also be worth mentioning that there are many un-bundled permissions now, and what they are useful for if someone really wants to help. WP:Becoming an administrator is spectacularly unhelpful in this regard -- a bunch of spooky warnings about misuse of the tools and technical info on what the permissions do, and how to proceed at the moment of nomination for RfA, but not how to become qualified. "The RfA process allows other editors to get to know the candidate, and explore the candidate's involvement and background as an editor, conduct in discussions, and understanding of the role they are requesting" may be all it says. Explore the candidate's involvement and background, harumpf. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, derp, there's a "how to" at Wikiversity. I'll go read that now. It might be what I just said we should have. (followup to myself) Nope, it was maybe a promising start but it wasn't finished and really says nothing about the cultural norms on English Wikipedia. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then a new or edited document could be organized by a committee of administrators and others, with EEng thrown in for the clarity and humor, which could form a sense of purpose to attract new dedicated candidates. How about a search committee, an input committee which would locate at least some candidates who would fulfill the promises of the improved document of principles which would guide administrators on the path towards, and in the presence of, their honored responsibility. Admins should be among the best of Wikipedians, those who can guide cordial relationships between the editors, and the beneficial good faith welcoming and, above all, positive treatment of new editors, into the era of Wikipedia pre-, and then post, Nobel Peace Prize. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you look in the right places, you might find those committees today. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the work that admins do are to the benefit of Wikipedia and its users. But. Admins should not be elected for life. In Wikipedia in Norwegian Bokmål Admins are elected for two years, then they have to be re-elected (a similar system in Wikipedia in Swedish, which we basically copied). Most all are re-elected, but having to stand for election both gives a chance to remove the one's that do not fit to the role, plus it connects with the society around us. Try explaining that admins have the position for life. Its not accepted, even in Norway, we have one royal family, that's enough. Ulflarsen (talk) 21:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ulflarsen: That's one of those perennial proposals that simply don't work on en-wiki. no-wiki has 42 admins, sv-wiki 63. That's 1,75 / 2,625 confirmation RFAs per month. On the other hand, en-wiki has 1,211 admins (as of today), which would mean 50,46 confirmation RFAs each month, far more than the community can reasonably handle. Regards So Why 09:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To SoWhy: If the system we have in Wikipedia in Norwegian Bokmål is copied, then Wikipedia in English will have two elections each year, one in the spring and one in the autumn. In each 1/4 of the admins are on election. That would mean around 300 admins in each election for renewal. (see the admin page here, alas only Norwegian Bokmål). But the important issue is the idea, not how its implemented. It could be an indirect system, where users vote for a group that would function in such a way that admins are not elected for life. Ulflarsen (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ulflarsen: Voting for 300+ people twice a year does not sound easier. For ArbCom elections we only have like 10-15 candidates and it already takes several weeks to vet those few. Who would have time to vet 300 people? Even if you only spend 1 minute on each person, it would mean 5 hours of work - 5 hours that could be used more productively clearing all the backlogs (not to mention that 1 minute is far too short to vet someone). I'm not generally opposed to term limits but so far no one has been able to present a convincing case why term limits are better than the current system. Regards So Why 10:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So make the term limit ten years. That shouldn't take up too much time and would still have the benefit of giving admins at least a small reason not to piss everyone off. This also addresses the issues of changing standards and some long-time admins not keeping up with policy changes. And it migh weed out those few who have spent years doing just enough work to avoid triggering an inactivity desysopping. --Guy Macon (talk)
That would still mean 120+ reconfirmation RFAs each year (or 10+ each month). Even at its heyday, RFA never regularly had 10 nominations per month. The question remains: How many admins like this actually exist whose continued adminship hurts the project? (NB: I'm not saying this because I would reach my term-limit in three months). Regards So Why 12:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I question your numbers. You are assuming that all 1,200 admins are/will be active after 10 years. How many of those 1,200 admins have been admins for over 10 years and less than 11 years? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I did it right, this query should answer the question: 184 admins who are still admins have been promoted between 2007-07-01 and 2018-06-30 (not a perfect query of course since the logging table contains some duplicates but it should do the trick). Assuming we instituted a term limit of 10 years, we would have to reconfirm 184 admins (15,33 per month), including a number of admins I think I can safely assume are "wiki nobility". Regards So Why 14:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like we would have 10 years to reconfirm those 184 admins. Only the ones from 2008 would be up for reconfirmation this year. the ones from 2009 would be up next year. And (imagining that the system has already been in place for several years) the ones from 2007 would have been up for reconfirmation last year. We would have to deal with the fact that there is a backlog of 11-year, 12-year, etc. admins when we first started doing 10th year reconfirmations, but there are ways to space them out. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, 2006 to 2011 were the years with the most successful RFAs and a lot of current admins were promoted back then, so you would have huge backlogs at least until 2025. But even if it were technically feasible, I'm still waiting to hear a reason why it would be a good idea to waste so much time and energy on such reconfirmations. Not to mention that some admins would most likely stop making hard decisions if they have to fear reprisals in their reconfirmation RFA. Regards So Why 15:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to imply that I thought it was a good idea. I am just interested in the math. For a yearly reconfirmation, the monthly numbers should settle out as roughly the number of successful RfAs per month times the average number of years before an admin leaves - clearly too many to handle. For a tenth year reconfirmation, the monthly number should settle out to be the number of successful RfAs on this month ten years ago minus whatever percentage of admins quit before serving for ten years -- clearly a manageable number. Add one extra reconfirmation per month to reduce the backlog and it should still be manageable. Look at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Recent. Assuming a ten-year term limit and every admin sticking around for ten years, we will have one reconfirmation in April of 2028, zero in May, and two in June. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me a static of inactive admins? If there are just as many inactive vs active, then that means those inactive have contributed less than active non admins, and therefore do not need those admin tools. If an admin can't defend their beliefs on why they should have the tools, they shouldn't continue to have them. A reconfirmation demonstrates an admin's continued commitment to make meaningful contributions with the tools they are privileged to have access to, and not just hollow promises to the masses. Neovu79 (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is an old saying among the gnomes... "Some of my best friends are admins!" As quaint and systemically biased as that may sound, it's undeniably true, at least in my case. Okay, it has to be said... I wouldn't be an admin if they paid me to be one. A few of the reasons are depicted on this page, and a few more are described on the Q&A page. To me, being an admin is not at all like being an officer and the rest of us are enlisted troops. No. Being an admin is more like being a no-striper or a one-striper that we hand the rakes and mops and floor buffers to while the rest of us outrank them. I do like the idea of electing admins to limited terms. That way, if an editor decides they don't like being an admin, then they can easily choose not to run for reelection. I've seen up close what admins have to face everyday, and the only thing about being an admin that I like is that they've been vetted by the community and have our trust, which is to me the best part about being an admin! Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 12:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I tend to agree that most admins work to benefit Wikipedia, I do not agree with a system that gives volunteers access to be judge and jury over what is technically an organization. If a person is voted as an admin, I think they should be seen as a true representative of Wikipedia because of the power that they wield. There has to be a system of accountability in an organizational level to protect the good and honest admins or attacks by non admins will continue to go unchecked. I find this to be the root of the problem of an all-volunteer non-organizational workforce and why there are so few RfAs in the past five years. Many of us non admins feel there there is no safety net there to protect from the seldom backlash they would receive if they too become admins. On the flip side, a system where admins have to be re-elected every x-number of years will ensure that any "bad apple" admins will not continue to abuse their powers. This will ensure better trust in admins by non admins. Neovu79 (talk) 00:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I have had tremendously positive experiences with most admins, and this is by no means intended as a personal attack, I do feel the need to call into question the validity of this Op-Ed from an admin defending admins. Perhaps it would carry more weight if written by someone not in the role. Admins are both necessary and valuable, and I have participated in more than a few RfA conversations. In those cases, absent a clear indicator that someone has done harm to the project or simply doesn't have sufficient experience, I !vote to give the candidate the mop because we do need admins! That said, Admins are more than administrators of the project, they are influencers of the members as a whole. Every interaction that an admin (or anyone with enhanced privileges, myself included) has with an editor can determine that individual's desire and likelihood to continue editing in a constructive and meaningful way. Most admins understand this innately and do an incredible job at it. Others do not understand it and don't seem interested in learning more about it. I have long stated that the process for Adminship needs revamping. There are no specific criteria, and it's open to subjective assessment of those who participate in the RfA and ultimately, the decision of a Bureaucrat who makes a judgment call based on those selective assessments. Further, once someone is an admin, editors are loathe to complain about them or even nominate them for recall due to fear of retaliation. You might say such fears are unfounded, but it doesn't really matter whether they are or are not. The perception becomes the reality and it drives people away from the project. It's time to have terms of adminship, 2 years, maybe 3 and then, the admin should have to reapply and the body of work performed, and their interactions with Wikipedians should be the determinants for continued privileges. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 12:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The validity of your comment would be apt if it were at least accurate - the article is a synthesis of what 32 admins had to say about their work. There were no opinions expressed by the reporter. That said, many journalists write about topics in which they are not only interested but in which they may even have some first hand knowledge. It's perfectly legitimate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An admin nearly killed me. I was an admin, many times, and I created the AN — and I absolutely regret it. The complete lack of civility on Wikipedia is pathetic, and whilst I used to love working on the project - devoting hours and hours of my time, there is no way in hell I would spend any time on it any more. You can thank WWGB and another fellow Australian for that. I remain disgusted by the way I was treated. - tbsdy Chris.Sherlock (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An intertesting history. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Ditto the rationale for my diminshed level of activity on the project and in the financial contributions I've made. Mine isn't with the same individuals, but it's for the same reason. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 21:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vertium, anyone who has ever had a brush with an admin has brought it upon themseves. This does not mean however, that the admin's reaction or reaction was always the best, but admins don't go around randomly blocking people for no reason at all. Also, while not all admins may be academics or teachers, many of them do have a good sense of project management and won't hesitate to intervene and assist when a group of very young but well meaning people are really using Wikipedia as more of a club rather than pro-actively producing some output. As an example, the WP:CVU still works extremely well many years later without its former bureaucracy . Looking back, I see several admins offering some very sound and reasonable advice there. In the meantime bots and filters have taken over much of the detection of vandalism and WP:AIV is not backlogged. There is so much to do on Wikipedia that people with real skills are always wanted and welcome in other areas, such as WP:NPR, for example, where such work used to be generally quite lonely and haphasard until I turned it round. In just over a year, motivated individuals have been able to reduce a 22,000 page backlog to under 600, but the work needs to continue to keep it there; without introducing hierarchies, it now needs replacement leadership to continue the coordination of that work . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"anyone who has ever had a brush with an admin has brought it upon themseves"—that is just the kind of arrogant comment that drags the reputation of admins in general down the drain, and keeps it there. Tony (talk) 06:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Anyone who has ever had a brush with an admin has brought it upon themselves"^{[Citation Needed]}, so it is never the case that a completely innocent party is reported at ANI or Arbcom? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kudpung for making my case with such clarity. And my opinion is that it's a wee bit self-serving to claim that WP:CVU is working extremely well, as you were the one who declared you were taking it over and rebuffed conversation with anyone who disagreed with you, and at the same time co-opting the rubric without so much as a thank you to those who developed it. And I take your point that other areas need attention, but perhaps editors would like to have some say in the areas they volunteer since, it *is* volunteer work, and we might want to do things that interest us instead of taking direction from you or other admins who seem to want to direct our efforts. In any case, it's probably best that we discontinue the dialogue, as this is exactly the type of admin attitude and behavior that pushes me away from the project, and I don't need the admonitions. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 15:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the rare time you have ever contributed to this encyclopedia Vertium, I will take you recent return as pure harassment. I'm a thick skinned admin and can take a lot of fake flak, but before making thing things up as the reason for not having edited for four years, perhaps you should refresh your memory. There were several admins gently explaining to that bunch of kids that Wikipedia is not recess or break time at school, and neither of us breezed in laying down the rules and syllabus like the director of an education district. You had every opportunity to take on some leadership there, but nobody followed. Get over it - Wikipedia does not need you.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't no interest in arguing facts from long ago with you, and perhaps my suggestion to discontinue dialogue was too subtle, though I did suspect that if you replied, it would be pietistic in tone, and you did not disappoint. The notion that someone doesn't edit enough by your standards is offensive on its face and exactly the point I was making in my original post on this article. I'm glad you don't need me, as the feeling is quite mutual. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 01:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

""anyone who has ever had a brush with an admin has brought it upon themselves"" This just isn't true. 1) Sometimes an editor and an admin just disagree fundamentally on the best way forward. The best solution is - if, as an admin, you are getting nowhere with an editor and feel your fingers hovering over the "block" button to "shut them up" ... get out of the bearpit and ask one of the many other admins to have a look. 2) On seriously contentious ANI threads, a group of admins can "circle the wagons" around you and make you bang your head in frustration that nobody who respects your viewpoints wants to turn up to the debate for fear of having their head ripped off. (I've seen this happen to me first-hand). It also means that while in principle I think term limits are a good thing, or at least bring positives (I have been an admin elsewhere three times, each elected to a 1-year term limit and it was fine); but I can't get excited about it because I don't have any confidence I would pass RfA again as I've rubbed too many admins up the wrong way. 3) I recall several people saying it's just a plain old fact of life that some people do "not play well with others" while simultaneously being some of the most talented and productive writers. It happens here, it happens in other projects (Linus Torvalds is infamous for his complete lack of tact and civility despite widespread acclaim for his contribution to the IT industry), it happens in the real world - it's just a plain old fact of life that you can either have a better encyclopedia, or you can have a Dolores Umbridge approach where everyone plays nicely-nicely with each other without any actual real work done. I don't particularly like this set-up, sure I would rather have super-productive writers who are also the poster boys of civil and respectful behaviour, but in a voluntary project that can't "fire" people per se, you have to use what you have. The admins that don't get this are the ones that scratch their heads wondering why the peanut gallery on Wikipediocracy and Reddit are being so utterly mean to them for "no reason whatsoever". There's always a reason. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Better watch it, folks. I see signs of a push at the Signpost newsroom to censor from story talk pages any reader comments that one or more SP contributors don't happen to like. One solution, apparently, would be to "do away with the comments section altogether". The thread here, apparently, contains "admin bashing" by people who should "should stay off the Signpost and go to one of the Wikipedia hate sites". Included in the deplorables is "Esp. gobbeldygook from non En speakers". Nice, guys—could we be more sensitive toward non-native speakers? There was a time when the SP actively sought global inter-wiki readership, and occasionally made an effort to cover issues of concern on other-language WPs. Tony (talk) 09:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This thread on Commons seems to make all the above arguments far better than I could. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the censorship of commentary has started, with the hatting of a comment I made about moves at the Signpost's newsroom to do just that: censor views that one or more of the SP's editors may not happen to welcome. It's disgusting. Tony (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtYU87QNjPw ] --Guy Macon (talk) 08:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that any project reliant on volunteers needs to take their needs and quirks into account. However this leads me to a different conclusion. It's a false dichotomy to say that the two choices are super-productive editors or stronger responses to rudeness and other non-collegial behaviour. There are too many editors who use belligerence as a weapon to achieve their goals, which takes advantage of the numerous editors who assume good-faith and look for a way to keep as many editors as happy as possible. There are also many editors who aren't contributing in accordance with Wikipedia's guiding principles, and because the community's decision-making structures aren't able to wean them out, rudeness can seem like the only tool available. There needs to be a way to reward desirable behaviours and discourage undesirable ones. Unfortunately, with English Wikipedia's current decision-making tradition, it's fairly random if any action is taken against negative behaviour: among other things, it depends on how many people notice and who shows up at any discussions about it. isaacl (talk) 08:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is late. Perhaps it might be usefully repeated or updated later somewhere. With respect to the number of administrators on the English Wikipedia and their levels of activity: From Wikipedia:List of administrators: "A list of all users who are currently administrators (sometimes referred to as "sysops") in the English Wikipedia can be found here. There are 1,214 (as of now) administrator accounts (active and otherwise), 525 of them active (as of 2018-07-23). Activity is defined as 30 or more edits during the last two months." There are 475 semi-active administrators. "These administrators have made fewer than 30 edits in the last 2 months but at least one edit in the last 3 months." There are 213 inactive administrators, who are "Administrators who have not edited in at least 3 months." Many of these may be headed toward the list of "Former administrators" who have not made an edit for more that one year. Of course, an administrator who is desysopped for inactivity can ask for automatic reinstatement during the following two-year period without having to go through an RfA. It appears that at least half of the administrators may make just an occasional edit to keep their mop active or semi-active. It seems to me that the number 1200+ put forward as the number of active administrators without looking at activity levels reflects an overstatement of the administrative capacity of the project as well as not a good indicator of the possible reduction in numbers over the next few years. Turnover is inevitable for a variety of reasons. Also, if even a fraction of the inactive administrators head into former status without corresponding reinstatements, considering the few new administrators being installed after RfAs, the number of administrators will continue to decline. This will increase the burden on the others. And of course, the need is acute in some administrative areas where the withdrawal of just a few skilled and active administrators would create even bigger backlogs and even in more active areas on certain days and at times. Donner60 (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- A count of the de-sysops and re-sysops for the past year at Wikipedia:Former administrators shows 62 de-sysops by my manual count and 15 re-sysops, all of which are shown on the first page of Lists of Administrators as well as in the cited article. So in fact corresponding reinstatements are not being made for administrators who become long term inactive. To complete the math, there have been 11 successful RfAs during the same 12-month period. Donner60 (talk) 05:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Want the latest Signpost delivered to your talk page each month?

Home

About