Jossi Fresco wrote:
On Feb 19, 2007, at 9:19 AM, Rich Holton wrote:
Jossi, you say that you are not against having many more admins, but you are against relaxing the criteria for becoming an admin. Do you have any useful suggestions for expanding the ranks?
Endeavor to make at least 5 nominations this month. If we all did that ....
I look forward to seeing your nominations.
Relaxing the criteria should have benefits beyond increasing the number of admins. It should help to eliminate the perception that being an admin is a "big thing". Yes, many non-admins overrate the prestige of becoming an admin--and many admins do as well.
Adminship *is* a big thing, as it pertains to the level of responsibility given to us. The "prestige" thing, in my experience, is not so much an issue for us as admins, but mostly to newbies that tend to give you some kind of credence because your are an admin. Any Wikipedian *knows* that adminship is both a privilege and a burden. Are there some admins that walk with a swagger because they are admins? Sure. But that is the exception and not the rule.
I don't think it does anyone any good to minimize the real differences that exist. As an admin, I can view any deleted article any time I want with no permission, implicit or explicit, and no community review. This is a big deal to some non-admins, and there are presumed legal reasons for keeping this distinction. Just telling people to self-nominate for the current, restrictive RfA is not a viable solution to people who may have good reason to view those deleted articles. This is just one example.
That is a small point... If an article was deleted by community consensus, it should be kept deleted. What interest should an admin have to view a deleted article, beyond addressing a Deletion Review?
You're picking at my example, rather than addressing the larger issue, which is your earlier statement that "editors can do as much as an admin besides deleting an article and closing AfDs". However, since you made that statement you have stated that "adminship *is* a big deal" (emphasis yours). So I assume that your earlier post was in error, or I misunderstood, or you've changed your mind.
We agree. As it currently stands, adminship *is" a big deal.
Because it is a big deal, it is desired by many. And many people rightly feel proud when they achieve it.
I think this is a bad thing for the project.
If you haven't been following this list recently, I urge you to view the archives and review this thread and the thread on admin burn-out. I think it will help you to understand some of the issues that lie behind some of the recent posts.
I have read that thread. And I concur with the view that we need more admins, but without making the requirements less onerous; that admins need more supporting and less bitching against them (as to encourage more editors to become admins); and that as we interact with editors and spot those that put the project first, we ask them for their agreement to nominate them for adminship.
And I think you're missing the fundamental problem that the current strict criteria creates: the notion that adminship is a big deal.
I believe that the "big deal" about being an admin is primarily a function of the strict requirements, not of the power that adminship gives you. As you did point out, most of the powers are reviewed by the community. These powers could be given to many more people, with much less strict criteria, with resulting in "chaos". Withholding these powers, which are not inherently a "big deal" does cause hard feelings and encourages the elitism (both actual and perceived) of the admin class.
Because adminship has become a "big deal", some of those who become admins do "swagger around". Some of them have a very high profile, and abuse their power. This gives admins a bad image, because the presumption is that most admins act this way. Because adminship is a big deal, we a very reluctant to remove admin powers from an admin. This encourages the view that the abusive, swaggering admins are acceptable. This leads to increased abuse of all admins. Which leads many admins to becoming less caring/more abusive in return. It's a self-reinforcing cycle.
All of this leads to many good, trustworthy contributors having no interest whatsoever in becoming admins. They don't want to subject themselves to the crazy and often humiliating process at RfA. They don't want to incur the abuse that is often heaped upon admins. And some admins will actually say that those people who don't want to go through these trials aren't fit to be admins!
We have to stop this self-destructive cycle. Admins should have respect and be respectful. We need to have effective ways of dealing with admins that get a fat head and abuse their power. We need to diminish the perceived and real chasm that exists between admins and editors.
I believe that one key way to accomplish this is to greatly relax the de-facto requirements for becoming an admin. Part of that will be more effective and more frequently used mechanisms for de-adminning. You can do the latter unless you do the former, because there is a real shortage of admins, and there is currently wailing and gnashing of teeth when any active admin leaves...even when there is general agreement that the admin was borderline abusive.
-Rich