Peter Mackay wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Leif Knutsen Being an admin is a big deal whether we want it to or not, because admins have it in their power to do really really annoying things to editors. Aside from 24-hour blocks, locking articles in various ways, closing discussions on AFDs, CFDs, etc., they also seem to enjoy a certain level of immunity against complaints. There is, as far as I can tell, a presumption that anyone who complains about an admin is a bit of a narcissist or troublemaker. There are also constant allegations that some admins are softer on people whose POV align with theirs, etc.
Hear hear!
There are some admins who shouldn't be. They got there because they are good editors, not because they are good at being admins. When an admin uses his powers to win edit wars and harass those with whom he disagrees, it's time to reassess that editor's role in the project.
I fear the day when a group of people will say "Hey! Let's all become admins on Wikipedia! All we have to do is revert vandalism for an hour for three months, and then we can all become admins and trash the place!" Actually, I wonder why it hasn't happened already.
Having said that, one must also consider the question - what is the highest priority? Building an encyclopaedia or having a good working community of editors?
Since the encyclopedia is still being written by humans, having a good working community of editors is a neccessary evil. Remember, Wikipedia is a project with a community, not the other way around.