[WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

[K P]

On 2/19/07, Rich Holton <richholton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> We agree. As it currently stands, adminship *is" a big deal.
>
> Because it is a big deal, it is desired by many. And many people rightly
> feel proud when they achieve it.
>
> I think this is a bad thing for the project.
>
> >> If you haven't been following this list recently, I urge you to
> >> view the
> >> archives and review this thread and the thread on admin burn-out. I
> >> think it will help you to understand some of the issues that lie
> >> behind
> >> some of the recent posts.
> >
> > I have read that thread. And I concur with the view that we need more
> > admins, but without making the requirements less onerous; that admins
> > need more supporting and less bitching against them (as to encourage
> > more editors to become admins); and that as we interact with editors
> > and spot those that put the project first, we ask them for their
> > agreement to nominate them for adminship.
> >
>
> And I think you're missing the fundamental problem that the current
> strict criteria creates: the notion that adminship is a big deal.
>
> I believe that the "big deal" about being an admin is primarily a
> function of the strict requirements, not of the power that adminship
> gives you. As you did point out, most of the powers are reviewed by the
> community. These powers could be given to many more people, with much
> less strict criteria, with resulting in "chaos". Withholding these
> powers, which are not inherently a "big deal" does cause hard feelings
> and encourages the elitism (both actual and perceived) of the admin class.
>
> Because adminship has become a "big deal", some of those who become
> admins do "swagger around". Some of them have a very high profile, and
> abuse their power. This gives admins a bad image, because the
> presumption is that most admins act this way. Because adminship is a big
> deal, we a very reluctant to remove admin powers from an admin. This
> encourages the view that the abusive, swaggering admins are acceptable.
> This leads to increased abuse of all admins. Which leads many admins to
> becoming less caring/more abusive in return. It's a self-reinforcing
> cycle.
>
> All of this leads to many good, trustworthy contributors having no
> interest whatsoever in becoming admins. They don't want to subject
> themselves to the crazy and often humiliating process at RfA. They don't
> want to incur the abuse that is often heaped upon admins. And some
> admins will actually say that those people who don't want to go through
> these trials aren't fit to be admins!
>
> We have to stop this self-destructive cycle. Admins should have respect
> and be respectful. We need to have effective ways of dealing with admins
> that get a fat head and abuse their power. We need to diminish the
> perceived and real chasm that exists between admins and editors.
>
> I believe that one key way to accomplish this is to greatly relax the
> de-facto requirements for becoming an admin. Part of that will be more
> effective and more frequently used mechanisms for de-adminning. You can
> do the latter unless you do the former, because there is a real shortage
> of admins, and there is currently wailing and gnashing of teeth when any
> active admin leaves...even when there is general agreement that the
> admin was borderline abusive.
>
> -Rich


Sounds familiar, except you're missing an important part: it must be easy,
also, to lose adminship.  In other words, it really must be no big deal,
which it currently isn't (no big deal).

And, yes, Marc Riddell is correct, "when statements along these lines are
made, there is a curious
silence that seems to fall over the List regarding them." And over Wikipedia
in general.

KP