On 1/18/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net>
wrote:
Yes, it is somewhat outdated, but it remains true
in a sense;
administrators are on the same level as everyone else as far as
content is concerned, pointing out that you are an administrator will
not get you far in a content dispute, and carried far enough, will
get you desysopped. There are occasional lapses and few folks sneak
around a bit, but those who think being an administrator gives them
authority over the most important thing in Wikipedia, content, are
mistaken.
Admins decide which content gets deleted and which content gets
undeleted. They decide when pages are protected and when they are
unprotected. While those pages are protected they decide what those
pages are going to say. They decide when to block someone for
violating the three revert rule and when not to block someone for
violating it.
On very rare occassion an admin does something so ridiculously
outrageous and out of touch with the POV of the arbitration committee
that they get reprimanded for it, but there are numerous occassions
where they influence content and nothing happens at all.
It's very hard to separate power from authority, and in a flat (as
opposed to hierarchical) system, it's probably impossible.
It's all about building trust. If a sysop has built a reputation for
fairness he can "get away" with a lot more. The community knows that
his edits do not deviate radically from accepted norms. He will also
show himself willing to discuss issues when his decisions are
questioned, and will be quick to admit when he is wrong. If he wants to
take a stand he will choose his issues carefully without feeling
compelled to maintain an argument about everything.
That just seems like elementary ability to get along with people.
Ec