[Foundation-l] retire the administrator privilege

[Ray Saintonge]

On 03/03/11 5:44 AM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
> 2011/3/3 Samuel Klein<meta.sj at gmail.com>:
>> Amir writes:
>>> Now i, in general, think that these permissions should be given
>>> liberally to as many reasonable Wikimedians as possible.
>> <snip>
>>> In fact it's quite likely that communities will want to give as little
>>> permissions as possible to users.
>> Can you explain the apparent paradox above?
> It's not a paradox: I think that they should be given liberally, but
> many community members may think otherwise. It's not very logical, but
> in all languages that i can read there are many discussions about it,
> full of confusions and suspicions. I believe that the name
> "administrator" is one of the main reasons for this and that's why i
> suggest retiring it completely.
>
> The name "administrator" gives the impression of some mythical
> "balance of power", although administrators don't actually
> administrate - they (un)delete, (un)block and (un)protect, in addition
> to editing articles and participating in discussions just like
> everybody else. The name "sysop" (system operator), used occasionally
> in English, and more frequently in some other languages (e.g. Hebrew),
> sounds less like a managerial role, but it's technical and cryptic and
> requires explanation.
>
> Giving user groups exact and real names will likely change the
> attitude of many users who see these user groups as "the powers that
> be" and think that they're impenetrable.

You make a strong point. People cherish their titles and the 
self-esteem.  Being able to say "I am a Wikipedia administrator," to 
someone who has never edited Wikipedia gives an impression of 
importance. Breaking the task into its components leaves each part less 
prestigious.  Saying that someone has "deletion privileges" instead of 
being a "deleter" disperses the sense of status.  The way something is 
said can make a difference.  Perhaps something as small as changing RfA 
to RfAP (Request for Administra*tion* Privileges) could have an effect 
by shifting the emphasis to privileges.

There are huge flaws in the decision making process. The process of 
proposal, considered favorable response, overwhelming negative vote is 
common.  It repeats itself, and that too becomes a part of the problem.  
There are always enough individuals to feel that their immediate rights 
or prospective rights are threatened to come out and give a sufficient 
vote to kill any reform proposal.  Those of us who would want a more 
liberal and more flexible policy framework have become jaded. We see the 
pattern repeat itself, and can no longer be bothered when it comes up 
again ... if we haven't left Wikipedia altogether.  We don't want to 
wade through the entire Encyclopedia of Witlessness before showing our 
support for a good reform proposal.  A single paragraph of explanation 
should be enough.  But even more, when we have heard the arguments so 
often, and have seen so many votes, we have no way of knowing that an 
important vote is happening.  The reformers need to make a better effort 
of canvassing their support.

Ray