Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/31/06, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"Steve Bennett" wrote
Personally I'm a bit puzzled that there seems to be a bias in favour of people who have edited high profile articles and thus have "handled conflict" well.
Errr ... aren't those exactly the kind of people we are short of? Few are natural diplomats, but part of being an admin is a willingness to intervene in tense situations, where there is no personal gain at all in sight.
Admins normally shouldn't be entering content disputes. Theoretically they shouldn't even care about content, in the same was as a football referee theoretically doesn't care who's winning.
I may be forgetting some pertinant situations here, but being well versed in getting a point of view across in a content dispute is not necessarily a useful skill in adminship. No?
What undid Pete Rose was not simply gambling, but betting on baseball.
Admins will have opinions on different subjects, and hopefully many came here in the first place because they felt they had something to say about some encyclopedic topic. One way of reading what you say is that admins should abandon normal editing though I doubt that that is your intent. It is more immportant to avoid using admin status as a trump card in a dispute. There are many more articles where an admin can act as an honest broker.
Ec