User:Useight/RFA Subjects/Net positive

Lazy Admins (Archive 35)
I'd successfully nominated Thames to adminship (28-3-1), despite him stating that he didn't have time to do admin chores. Now I see another guy, Sfoskett running on the same platform Requests for adminship/Sfoskett. I don't want to see new policy formulated or anything, but I'm just curious, what do you all think of lazy admins, candidates who say they don't have time for admin chores? My take on it personally is that as long as I'm confident a candidate won't do harm with admin tools, I don't really care if he only goes on RC patrol once a year.Borisblue 06:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm something of a lazy admin myself these days; I became an admin ages ago, and I don't really have much time any more. I don't see why I shouldn't remain an admin, though, and by extension I don't see why somebody else shouldn't be. More generally, I don't like how hard it seems these days to become an admin (particularly those who insist on some absurdly high edit count) --Khendon 06:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm, well personally I wouldn't vote for someone who says they dont plan on doing any admin chores, why else would they want admin? Notoriety? Too block users at will? As far as edit count.. ugh, I can't stand those discussions. I don't think it's harded to become and admin though, look out how many there have been in the past few months, it seems like were filling up a whole ship of 'em or something. &laquo;&raquo; Who ? &iquest; ? meta  07:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that the quality of a user's edits would be used to determine if a user was to become an administrator rather than using a user's edit count. Mark 02:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I treat the "admin chores" in the same way I do page editing; when I have a few minutes, I'll dig around for something I can do. Sometimes this is editing a page, sometimes it's involving myself in a talk page, sometimes it's protecting a page, and so on. What I'm getting at is that I do all these things sporadically, and I don't think that reduces their individual value, or mean I shouldn't be an admin. --Khendon 07:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I must admit that in the past month or so my use of administrative authority has tapered off to very little. I also rarely edit.  Kelly Martin 02:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

As a side note, I've noticed a pattern in both Thames' and Sfoskett's RFAs: Durin comments about their "laziness", both receive some initial oppose votes because of that, and then suddenly the tide turns and they receive an avalanche of support votes. It seems, bizarrely that the easiest way to pass RFA is to get 'outed' as a lazy admin! Borisblue 07:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Shhh, everyone will hear you :) Yea that is kind of weird, maybe others feel its comforting to think they won't have trigger happy admins? Dunno.  &laquo;&raquo; Who ? &iquest; ? meta  07:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If I get elected to arbcom I promise to take it easy. INSTANT SUCCESS!!!! Ryan Norton T

I'll cut and paste my comment from Sfoskett's RfA here: I'd rather have someone trusted to use admin powers doing so occasionally instead of not having them at all. Consider it this way - suppose you have $50,000 in the bank, and someone offers you a gift of cash, but it's only $50. Do you turn it away because it's too little? Even if Sfoskett makes minimal use of admin powers, any use he does make will surely benefit Wikipedia, so why deny him (and the rest of us) even a minimal benefit? BD2412 talk 13:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Quite. As long as you've demonstrated the necessary skills and experience to drive safely, you get a driving licence; it's not conditional on promising to drive a lot. Adminship should be the same. Rd232 talk 13:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with BD2412, and similarly I'll post the comment I made on Thames' RfA: what does it matter if he won't have much time to do admin chores? It's not as though promoting him takes up a place someone who has more time might get; there's no limit. If he also does a little, that a little less work everyone else has to do. I don't believe there's any reason to deny a trustworthy editor admin rights. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * To extend the comparison with driving, as an admin you can always stop dead in the road, pull out your cell phone, and call the cops (WP:AN, Village Pump, Help Desk) to ask, "I'm thinking of making a left turn here&mdash;besides slowing down and using my turn signal, is there anything else I need to do?" You can look out the window and see that there's been a massive shi snowstorm on WP:AN/I and say, "I really don't want to go out in that, maybe I'll stay indoors today and catch up on my housework."
 * Admin drivers can choose their vehicles and terrain. You can do the very necessary–but uncontroversial and straightforward–lawn tractor work: rolling back obvious vandalism and that sort of thing.  Not every admin wants or needs to participate in the complicated and contentious stuff.  I would support someone for adminship if he had shown good judgement in the past, made efforts to fix honest mistakes promptly and with good humour, and didn't seem likely to try to overreach his abilities in the future.  We need admins who will mow the lawn and tend the garden&mdash;admins who can drive lawn tractors and delivery trucks, not just armoured personnel carriers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * All these analogies are hurting my head. :) Talrias (t | e | c) 15:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I view it in terms of tics on Elephant's back: there's enough blood for everbody right? Conversely, there is the astronaut criterion: would you trust a kid with a model airplane to be an astronaut? No, you wouldn't, no matter how much he loves his model. This reminds me of the Peanuts cartoon: why did Patty move the football away from Charlie Brown all the time? And why, if adminship is like a football (arguably it isn't, but just suppose), should we hold the ball back from anyone? "Sometimes we should" you might say, and you'd be right. But still. Marskell 15:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The metaphors in this section are more useless than a weasel in a cardboard shirt. Borisblue 18:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey, that is a simile. BD2412  talk 22:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to compare this situation to an analogy and a metaphor. Because the admin is like the first part of the analogy, it can be compared to the RfA that it is in. A metaphor works in a similar way, one part is analogized to the other. And then analogies are like metaphors, but that's a simile. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 22:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. If that didn't make sense, don't worry. It didn't to me, either. :-)


 * Is this becoming ENG 101 or something? Keep this up, and I think we should BJAODN these literary devices, and enshrine them as "Tips for the Aspiring Admin - How to Tend the Wikipedian's Good Garden" --HappyCamper 23:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I really dislike the connotation of this section. "Lazy" is a word that carries some heavy duty negative impact. In my votes where I voted oppose because of a lack of frequent participation of a nominee, I did not cite "laziness" as a reason. I do maintain, and will continue to maintain, that I feel an admin needs to be active to be an effective admin. I am intending on writing my rationale up on a subpage of mine, since this stance of mine is questioned periodically and I would like to avoid repeating myself. I do not see something inherently bad in suggesting that admin nominees be frequent contributors to the project, and I do see a number of positive benefits. My stance on this point is in good faith. Barring more persuasive (to me) arguments against it than the above, I expect I'll continue to support this stance. --Durin 21:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)