[WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

[Keitei]

On Feb 16, 2007, at 7:48, Timwi wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> sorry for jumping into this thread without reading the other responses
> first, but here's mine... :-)
>
> Keitei wrote:
>> Admins must:
>> 	be neutral, above all else.
>
> This is already wrong. An admin who does not do any blocking,  
> protecting
> or deleting, is by definition harmless, but they need not be  
> neutral (in
> what they secretly believe would deserve deletion or protection). You
> would be denying adminship to such a person even though it would not
> cause any harm, therefore you are turning adminship into the "big  
> deal"
> again that we are trying hard not to make it.
>
>> Therefore, admin candidates must:
>> 	demonstrate they can [...]
>
> This is clearly wrong. What you are saying is that someone who cannot
> demonstrate that they would be a good admin before they're actually an
> admin, can't become admin. Catch-22!
>
> You are also reiterating this false belief that someone who does  
> not fit
> your criteria must not ever be admin even for a minute, i.e. you are
> acting as if adminship could never be removed again.
>
> So, my corrected version of your assessment would look something  
> like this:
>
> - Admins must, *on the whole*,
> 	be neutral (in deleting, protecting, blocking)
>
> - Therefore, an admin who deletes, protects or blocks something/ 
> someone
>    unfairly, must be de-adminned. Everyone else can, by definition, be
>    admin without causing harm.

I stated that incorrectly then. I meant that admins when acting as  
admins must be neutral in their approach to admin actions. One can  
demonstrate this by being neutral when approaching conflicts with  
others, but other than that, I have no idea how they could  
demonstrate it. And yes, the best way to know whether someone will be  
a good admin is to just let them try.

My criteria, as you put it, were just meant as what I think admin  
candidates ought to show (just, "I can be neutral when asked to be",  
no shrubberies or herrings), but there are many different ways of  
determining whether someone will do or be something. I'm asking if  
maybe our current criteria, varied and sundry though they are, are  
determining whether they will be good admins, or if they are just  
arbitrary bars. Could we lower the bar and still allow in good admins  
while keeping out the bad?

And then the backlogs are better, people leave less, etc etc. Hopefull.