On 1/18/06, Walter Vermeir <walter(a)wikipedia.be> wrote: Interesting. It looks like Jimbo forgot to create the "sysop" (4) category and instead gave "sysop" (4) powers to the "community members" (2). "Adminship is no big deal" would seem to be talking about (2), where "anyone can become a community member just by asking". But actual admin powers are closer to (4), of "which there might only be 1, [Jimbo], or a very small number". But then, this merge seems to have already taken place by the second post (four months later), which eliminates the distinction and allows "Old-hand/sysop"s to "be able to do a tiny number of destructive (irreversible) things, IF we need to have those abilities for some reason". The plan from the first post actually seems better, to me. Anthony

You mischaracterize an ambiguous situation as being totally corrupt. Fred On Jan 18, 2006, at 9:10 AM, Anthony DiPierro wrote:

A lot of it is poker. Folks without a decent hand, raising and bluffing. I suggest courteous calling: asking for sources, negotiating, patience, using the dispute resolution process effectively. Fred On Jan 18, 2006, at 9:45 AM, Andre Engels wrote:

Fred Bauder wrote: Yep. Sometimes you even need to bluff with a good hand so that you can win a bigger pot. Ec

Anthony DiPierro wrote: 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

I have read the discussion with great interest. Svwiki started out letting pretty much everyone becoming an admin, and remained this way a long time. Our most complex troll ever, clever and mixing good contribution with direct destructive actions, became an admin, and used the position to "bite people" (not only newbies) - when stripped of his admin priviledges, he got a lot nicer. We have several admins who would never be elected if they were nominted for adminship today - this is the main reason why many of us wants a system where admins are elected for say a year, not forever, and my guess we will have this new system running within a year. I see a group of admins who speak to newbies "from above"; the message is "I know the rules here, you don't". They could do the same if they weren't admins, of course - but my belief is these people would use a softer tone if non-admins. One or two of those who don't want clearly unsuitable admins to be removed from office (maybe because this admin realises he wouldn't get reelected?) tell me "adminship is no big deal - it is you who are making it into a big deal." It is logikal - if adminship is no big deal, what is so bad with having some admins who don't respect other people's views? If I don't know everyone in the community, I will judge them partly from other people's opinions. The admin hat gives it's carrier a certain credibility, earned or not. The response a user gets in discussions tell me what informal status this person has in the group, so to speak, but finding someone in the list of administrators also tells me "this is a trusted member, so maybe what he says isn't so bad as it first sounded to me". When an admin is being unjust to newbies, people don't speak up since you don't want to create a fight. There are other ways of getting a position where your words are a bit "heavier" than others, but getting adminship is an important one. The main reason I spent a long time at the swedish wiki competitor, susning.nu, rather than at Swedish Wikipedia was that I felt treated badly by a person who wasn't just an admin, but one of the "heavy names", one of the influentual ones. He felt his adminship had nothing to do with his actions towards me, and his judgement of me based on little information... nothing at all. I strongly felt it had. When exposed to unjust actions from an admin, you kind of believe there is the wiki concensus behind it. Why should I expect anything good from places where people who are elected to some kind of position don't treat me with respect? In my eyes, it comes down to - if we keep saying "adminship is no big deal", does this make the adminship a lesser deal, or do we just keep saying something that isn't true and thus prevents us from seeing the reality? Personally, I resigned from adminship without anyone asking me to do so since I felt I could do more good as a non-admin. I have my position in the community regardless of admin status, so it doesn't make much of a difference. In my opinion, it is those whose position in the group relies heavily on their adminship, who are most unwilling to loose it. /Habj

If the Supreme Court accepted to hear all cases that were submitted to them they would never get through all the work. Not only that, but yet others would be encouraged to submit even more cases. Ec Fred Bauder wrote: