Leif Knutsen wrote:
>Jay wrote
>
>You appear to think the problem is
>that it's difficult to de-admin an administrator. I think the problem is
>that we are creating administrators who are not part of the community, not
>familiar with its policies and norms, and not particularly interested in
>Wikipedia's goals."
>
The difficulty in having someone de-admined is one part of the problem,
but far from being the whole thing. I've been dealing with one
situation on Wiktionary where my preferred course of action would be a
probationary period. If it doesn't work out the admin status could
easily be withdrawn. However, because it would be so difficult to undo
the status when once given, the decision has been to defer the decision
for a month. The problem has been precisely the kind of concern that
Jay has raised.
It seems to me that in order to be an admin, a person
has to demonstrate
knowledge of and commitment to Wikipedia's policies, goals, values, etc.
Right now we're leaving that up to a more or less random votes of people who
are inclined to drop in and have their say. Clearly, if only qualified and
committed editors become admins, we'll have fewer problems with existing
admins who are either fools or knaves with their powers.
Commitment to goals and values, certainly. Policies are a lot more
fluid, because we are not well served by people who want to make a
career of wikilawyering. A good admin really needs to understand how
the policies got to where they are. He also needs to understand that
the poliies are themselves wikis and changeable, and that those changes
often happen without the broader community being aware of them until
someone tries to enforce one of the policies.
No vote on admiship should be decisive by itself because the subset of
Wikipedians who regularly participate in these votes are not really
representative of the community. The good editors are too busy editing
and creating articles. If they expended as much time and integrity on
votes as they do on edits they would have no time left to edit.
Would it be too formal to set up a test of some kind
that candidates would
have to pass in order to be eligible for adminship? And then set in place an
admin board (separate from the Arbcom) that can suspend or disqualify an
admin for a poor job?
A test might find the fools and the completely clueless, but we already
manage that part of it. Social dysfunction can be more difficult, and
it's often not apparent until it's too late.
An admin board should be a workable idea, but not if it means wading
through stacks of controversy, as might be more normal for the arbcom.
They shouldn't need to be put to the same degree of stress induced burnout.
Ec