[WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

[Rich Holton]

Keitei wrote:
> With all this hubbub about admins and making more admins with no  
> criteria and why shouldn't we just bump everyone up a level! and all  
> that jazz, I think it is high time we evaluate what admins need to be  
> or do to be successful. Then from there, in my opinion, we can lower  
> the bar, leave things as they are, or continue to pursue this  
> everyone's an admin!!! deal. (Sorry if I've inserted my POV too much  
> into the preceding paragraph)
> 
> So. This is how I see it.
> 
> Admins must:
> 	be neutral, above all else.
> 		when they block
> 		when they protect
> 		when they delete
> 	recuse when they are unable to be neutral
> 	have the understanding of policy to know when it is objectively okay  
> to block/protect/delete
> 	be able to judge consensus
> 	not be a timebomb
> 
> Therefore, admin candidates must:
> 	demonstrate they can participate in discussions in which they have  
> no personal invested interest, with positive effect to those who do  
> have personal invested interest
> 	demonstrate they know the difference between their opinion,  
> consensus, and the Truth (which doesn't exist on wiki)
> 	demonstrate they recognize their own bias and will refuse to act  
> upon it
> 
> To be honest, I have no idea how they would demonstrate this. But  
> perhaps if we switched to a system of vouching, whereby different  
> people would say "I have worked with this user and they have always  
> been neutral in disputes and blahblahblah." like the nomination,  
> except more of them. And no edit counts and no FAs and no namespace  
> distribution. If one is cautious enough to always work within policy,  
> one will always check unknown policies before doing anything one has  
> never done before. And then perhaps once the candidate has enough  
> people vouching for them, they're promoted.
> 
> Or maybe something completely different. But in my opinion, adminship  
> is not edit counts and vandal fighting; it's dealing with things as a  
> neutral agent of the 'pedia. Well, at least when one has one's admin  
> hat on.
> 
> --keitei
> 

Sorry, but I have to disagree. The only real criteria I can figure is 
that we want to avoid admins who go completely zonkers and start 
systematically working against the aims of Wikipedia. If we can be 
reasonably sure someone won't do that, then there's no reason to keep 
them from becoming an admin.

Of course, we need to be willing (and able) to de-admin someone when 
they consistently demonstrate the sort of behaviors you mention (or 
worse). But the whole wiki concept is one of self healing and 
resilience, not pre-approval. What we don't want to have is a class of 
users (admins) who are placed into the spotlight every time they make a 
mistake, or every time one of them turns out to be less than desirable.

I respect the concerns of those who want to avoid granting large blocks 
of admin rights to what end up as sock-puppets intent on destruction. 
Perhaps we do need a sizable class of users whose sole role is granting 
and revoking admin rights--but these users should not be themselves 
admins. These people should be very carefully selected, and should for 
the most part stay out of controversy.

-Rich