Wikipedia talk:Adminitis

Common
Is this quite common among administrators in Wikipedia to show Adminitis? I hope not! -- S iva1979 Talk to me  21:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It can be difficult to repeatedly assume good faith after you've dealt with a sufficiently large number of vandals and abusive trolls. Sad but true. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 02:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Great work!
Great work of humour - no, no, great work! --Bhadani 10:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems silly to me, and not in a good Monty Python sort of way. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

???
What is this?! This sort of stuff is meant for rubbish sites like Uncyclopedia aren't they?58.107.237.0 (talk) 08:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

What about classifying adminitis?
Very well said. May be we can even make a classification of different types of adminitis. eg Acute and chronic, some may be relapsing..eg acute on chronic, or chronic active ~ ;) ..and we can classify also based on the personality disorders associated, eg fragile narcissistic type (the commonest type of adminitis I think), some spoilt narcissistic type, and so goes for the other types of personality disorders etc etc.. --Dr.saptarshi (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Phases of adminitis
There may be a latent phase.. and then a subclinical pre-adminitis phase.. And for the god forbid clinical phase.. we must make some arrangement for a wiki-hospitalization.. or if not inpatient at least some wikiTonic or strengthening or wikifixure for tightening some screws.. some restraints and may be some wikihypnosis ? But all treatment has to be in a virtual graphci format.. may be some music therapy link can be sent.. actually there should be some wikicounsellors. I mean seriously.. --Dr.saptarshi (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"Idiopathic Adminopathy" or "Adminopathy" are better titles.
Idiopathic: Of unknown cause.

-itis means: caused by inflammation.

-opathy means: something is wrong, but doesn't specify why.

WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Humourous but unhelpful
I do find this page funny, but I have to disagree a little with the point it tries to make. Administrators are needed, and the sort of work administrators do is needed and will continue to be needed. There's an unfortunate rhetorical power struggle that goes on at RfA between "content creators" and "non-content creators". This is the source of some friction and has led to User:SoWhy creating WP:NEIA, and the related essay Content awareness, not content creation.

In an ideal world, everyone would spend their time writing FAs. We'd all be brilliant wordsmiths, take superb photographs, have access to enormous libraries of source material and there would be no vandalism at all, and we had no jobs to go to or school exams to take or bills to pay or whatever. We could reach the lofty heavens of producing dozens of pages of featured content.

But not everyone is good at that, and it shouldn't be a reason to push those who aren't good at it or interested in it, but are interested in maintaining the encyclopedia and doing the gnomish tasks to the back of the bus. The wikignome types and anti-vandalism patrollers and so on do hang out in project space, and they don't participate in WP:FAC. I don't have time for writing featured articles. But nor do the many wonderful people who spend their time at WP:FAC seem to spend much time doing all the boring drudgery that the gnomes get up to. Think of it like this: the featured content writers, the "content contributors" as they like to call themselves, are the novelists and poets. The wikignomes are the remedial primary school teachers. There's no glory in gnoming. There is no point where your article hits the front page. There's no shiny star you get on the top of your article. There's just the soul-destroyingly large numbers of things that need fixing in WP:BACKLOG.

None of this justifies bad behaviour or newbie-biting or not assuming good faith. Those things need to be caught and handled. But similarly, failure to write a GA or an FA doesn't mean you are some kind of second-class citizen. If every time someone ran for admin, I were to oppose on the basis that they had never done any new page patrolling or they'd never participated in one of the lesser known deletion processes (TfD, FfD, RfD, CfD etc.), that would be considered mad, but if someone turns up and doesn't have some arbitrary number of DYKs or GAs or FAs, you can see the opposes coming in from miles off.

A lot of people would have a lot less "adminitis" if they weren't made to feel like lepers for not being "content creators". Apparently, being content maintainers and process maintainers and forgotten-content-fixer-uppers and newbie sherpas is considered not so important.

Apologies for not-funny response to humour. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Writing an FA is just one known potential cure for adminitis. Other known cures are wikibreaks, or large amounts of hugs, wikilove and/or TLC. :-)
 * Adminitis is suffered when your vision starts to narrow and you forget *why* you are doing what you are doing. (It's actually a symptom of psychological stress).
 * People acting calmly and without stress tend to have a wider field of view, and are more receptive to humor. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC) This document is ha ha only serious for a reason! (Also see: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Adminitis, and diverse logs. )