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