[WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

[Parker Peters]

On 2/19/07, Jossi Fresco <jossifresco at mac.com> wrote:
>
> The present state of things, is that any editors can have as much
> involvement in Wikipedia affairs as any admin could. What is the
> difference between an editor that has contributed 20,000 edits in two
> years and that is not an admin, and one with the same level of
> involvement that is one?  Absolutely *nothing*


What is the difference between these two? The editor who is not an
administrator has to live in daily fear that at any point, especially should
they edit on any remotely controversial subject without the protection of
another "friend" who is an administrator, they can be accosted by any
administrator, their rights to edit terminated.

All this can be done at the whim of any administrator, who can then lock the
talk page, who is then defended should they revert and block any other user
who speaks in the defense of the blocked editor as a "sockpuppet of a
blocked user."

And what will happen should this happen? Nothing at all. The editor will
remain blocked, at the whim of the blocking admin. The appeals process will
not happen, and no resolution can happen. The supposed "authorities" who are
supposed to prevent this prefer to turn a blind eye, to dismiss complaints
against administrators without ever investigating.

Meanwhile, the Admin is growing an ever larger ego, based solely on his
ability to do just this. Rather than acting within policy, Administrators on
Wikipedia are the equivalent of Judge Dredd - they are judge, jury, and
executioner all in one package, screaming "I am the law" and doing whatever
they want, confident that the other Judge Dredds will back them up if any
questions of their abuses are ever raised.

Of course, there are perception such as yours. But these are
> perceptions, and not facts. These forced distinctions between admins
> and editors is a fallacy. Admins are also editors, and editors can do
> as much as an admin besides deleting an article and closing  AfDs.


See above. Editors cannot do nearly as much as an admin, because they do not
have the protection of position.

Rather than exacerbating the width of the perceived chasm between
> "admin" and "non-admin", we ought to be building bridges.


A noble concept, but completely inadequate with today's crop of admins; the
goal of the vast majority of the administrators is not to build bridges or
even an encyclopedia, but to consolidate their power and ensure that they
have the power to be as abusive, mean, incivil as they wish to be. The rules
to an admin are for the "little people", not for them.

Parker

-- 
====
Parker Peters
http://parkerpeters.livejournal.com