[WikiEN-l] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?

[Charles Matthews]

Jon Q wrote:
> The site sounds so wonderful as you enter -- "Come on in!  Start writing!
> Be bold!  Break the rules!" and you're heartened by the seeming generosity
> of spirit.  Until you actually encounter some experienced editors. The
> problem here then becomes something I've seen over and again in my own
> career -- people are actually more comfortable with "rules" than with vague
> standards which could allow for wiggle room.  They all KNOW about the
> pillars and IAR and pay lip service -- but in practice, they have little
> real application.  What's surprising is -- administrators seem to behave the
> same!
>
>   
You make some good points. Of course Wikipedia isn't utopian - nothing 
is, and even less so on the Internet with no screening of editors.

Translating from the "world of wiki" to the "world of work", as you do 
later in your post, what we really lack in admin selection could perhaps 
be summed up as a "standard psychological test" that could reveal who 
would show up in tense situations with an understated, reasonable, but 
firm approach. This thread originated in an issue where there must have 
been some failure to observe such standards, and not just on one side.

I don't think there is any consensus as to what should be done. I'm of 
the school that thinks that admins should get on with editing and 
routine tasks, and only get involved with issues as they crop up (but 
should never duck those that do). The trouble with the other, more 
authoritarian approach typefied by AN is that it produces both wrong 
outcomes and an adverse reaction that now reveals itself as nay-saying 
in the community. My two cents.

Charles