User talk:Varks Spira/Wikipedia administrator

Help

Hello? Can I at least put together a rough draft? Varks Spira (talk) 03:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to put together a rough draft, you can do so at a subpage of your userpage so that this article does not show up as a true "article". Dabomb87 (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to work with me on writing this article so that we can provide some basic information about the role of a Wikipedia administrator? From what I have read they are the ones who can delete an article and that has created something of a schism within their ranks. Varks Spira (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to write articles or do thorough research these days, but I can help out with basic formatting and writing issues. The challenge is to write in a neutral manner without lapsing into original research / synthesis and self references. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks. I'm searching for another opinion about the camaraderie between Wikipedia administrators... whether there really is a cabal of high priests. Varks Spira (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget about establishing notability. Referencing articles about other issues in which Wikipedia is somewhat involved does not really do it. Much of the content of this article is already covered in the articles about the actual events. Chillum 03:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep that in mind. Did you know about the "secret mailing list" that administrators have used in the past to discussion issues that led to the temporary banning of some contributor? There's a lot of information out there about administrators. Let me know if I'm being biased or getting wrong or leaving out huge pieces of the profile of a Wikipedia administrator. Varks Spira (talk) 03:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles like this one from The Register are sensationalized, based on rumor, and written by people who don't actually understand what's going on. I'm sure lots of administrators use an e-mail list to communicate with one another—just as lots of both administrators and regular users use IRC and private e-mail to communicate off-wiki—but that doesn't mean there is a "secret cabal". It's just silly to think there an evil "ruling clique": there are over 1600 administrators, most of whom disagree as often as they agree, and they're a very diverse crowd. Sure, there are some that are more active and high-profile than others, and some that have a lot of influence, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia administrators are a single-minded ruling cabal. This article is quite silly; if you want an informed opinion on administrators, I would suggest seeing ifanything has been written by Andrew Lih [1], one of the few people who writes about Wikipedia and actually understand it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to look into private communications between administrators. I've been wondering about the camaraderie of Wikipedia's administrators and that gets into alliances. I'm sure there must be more to the "secret" part of the mailing list than simply private communications, but I'm open to any other opinions. Varks Spira (talk) 03:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled across this... the section "Actions taken by Wikipedia administrators" needs to be re-titled something like "Controversy about a very few of the very large number of Actions taken by Wikipedia administrators" in order to be accurate. At the point you realise that the article is missing a section about the *actual* actions William M. Connolley (talk) 08:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few changes. This in no way carries any implication that I think it is or eveer will be suitbale for mainspace William M. Connolley (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To all who made the various changes, thanks! I'm unable to source some of the information. Can anyone point to the sources for the new information? Varks Spira (talk) 04:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secret communications

A few weeks ago, I met another Wikipedia administrator on the street. We greeted each other, and then had a brief conversation.

No one else will ever know what the conversation was about. We could have conspired to do evil sinister immoral things. There is no record of it; in fact, until now I'd forgotten all about it. Does this mean it was a secret conversation?

In point of fact, we talked about a personal tragedy I recently suffered, and he gave me a hug. But we could have discussed immoral inappropriate abuse of Wikipedia. Does that mean that the conversation was inappropriate?

"Wikipedia administrators also talk to each other on the telephone (both directly and via VoIP programs), send personal e-mails to each other, chat on IRC, and meet in person." Are you going to include this? If not, why not? DS (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, well I saw something somewhere on Wikipedia recently about an Eastern European mailing list that was being investigated. The mailing list that Wikipedians used was supposedly used for making decisions that went on behind closed doors. Maybe those Eastern Europeans are just talking about how their nationalities should all be more cooperative with each other, or perhaps they are working on improving the articles about their nations to show them off in a better light. I thought that the "secret mailing list" was shown to be used for certain nefarious purposes by certain Wikipedians. I'll have to read that article again, but this one is only in draft mode. You can change the article to provide a more accurate account if you wish. Varks Spira (talk) 04:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who defines "nefarious"? (Also, I responded to your comment on Risker's page). DS (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide view

{{Worldwide}} summarizes it well. The RfA, CSD, PROD and AfD processes are significantly different on other projects. The hierarchical structure also differs. decltype (talk) 06:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I don't know what all of those acronyms are, though. It does seem to me that there are certain Wikipedias that are better developed than others, and therefore they have better processes to regulate who becomes an administrator. Perhaps those ones will show some commonalities between all the different language administrators out there. Should we start sections for different language Wikipedias? Varks Spira (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the processes for deletion, and obtaining adminship. It seems to hold true that the larger the wiki, the more complicated the deletion and adminship processses are. As it is, the article presents the deletion process on the English Wikipedia as if it is the same for all wikis, which it isn't. There are a few things in common: Most Wikis allow articles to be deleted immediately under certain circumstances, and also implement some sort of deletion discussion. But it is not necessarily determined by consensus. I don't think the WP:PROD is particularly widespread. decltype (talk) 06:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need Mav

I'm happy to add my two cents worth, but if you want the REAL lowdown on the evolution of the administrator position, you need the input of Mav. He was the project's most important contributor between 2002 and 2004, and significantly defined the role of administrator as it is known today. I kept a much lower profile during those years, often editing anonymously. Manning (talk) 04:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]