[WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

[Rich Holton]

K P wrote:
> 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).
> 

Agreed. If this wasn't clear in my long rant above, it was an omission 
on my part.

-Rich