Jay wrote
"I don't think we all do agree on that. 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."
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.
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?
I know that adminship is not supposed to be a big deal, but I do think it's clear that a lot of well-meaning editors are provoked by questionable admin calls.
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 If it doesn't work out the admin status could easily be withdrawn.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
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
I recognize and applaud the fact that we want to keep things as simple as possible, but let me argue for the test idea a bit more.
I think such a test would have two purposes: - It would provide some self-screening - if admin candidates have to prove to themselves or others that they possess the knowledge and understanding to do a good job, they might be a bit more reluctant to self-nominate - It would create greater accountability in that the rest of us can assume that bad admin behavior is not a result of ignorance but something else
One option is to not make it mandatory but optional; those who take it and pass it will presumably have an easier time getting approved.
On 1/5/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
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.
Well, the flip-side of "adminship should be no big deal" might be that it should also be "no big deal" if adminship is delayed for a month.
Jay.