[WikiEN-l] for years been promoting admins who go with the flow rather than challenge low level bad behavior by admins and long standing users

[Ryan Delaney]

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 3:22 PM, FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:

> I have a few problems with the above thread too, but perhaps different
> ones.
>
> Admins will naturally have a strong say in decisions being active
> experienced users who have achieved wide respect and are often involved in
> abuse and conduct related decisions. But they don't necessarily have
> special
> standing beyond any other users. While only an admin can actually block or
> unblock someone, any user/s can open or involve themselves in the
> discussion. As admins, they make important decisions but the community as a
> whole has a right to become involved in those.
>
> It is largely the community that is expected to self-manage. Admins have
> areas they proactively act and are going to act like experienced active
> users more than most, but this is not intended to marginalize the full
> community.  Far from it - anything that expects admins to act like
> "custodians and decision-makers" to the point of overriding and
> marginalizing the community will be a concern.
>
> So the above thread seems wrongly positioned. The first priority for admins
> is to understand and exemplify the community's norms to a high standard.
> Good judgment, good sense of what the project is about, what helps it, what
> harms it. There are wide views on this so wide views in admins is expected.
> But some things are basics. "Do no harm" to the community itself. Admins
> who
> can be relied on to judge calmly, be neutral, be fair, be a good "face of
> Wikipedia" when they speak to new users who may be asking for help for the
> first time.
>
> Also admins need to be users who will make honest thoughtful judgments when
> something is bad for the project or when a user or dispute comes to
> attention. No cliques or putting friends and personal topics above the
> project, no "emotional dramatica" - admins have to be trusted that way
> moreso than for other users.  But this is meaningless if they have the
> wrong
> initial attitude to adminship and the project in the first place.
>
> Beyond that, everything else is secondary.
>
> "Going with the flow" is a problem, but moreso is being an admin when one
> is
> not a good custodian of Wiki norms and has a basically substandard or poor
> attitude on wiki basics.
>
> FT2
>
>
This all sounds good, and comes off as straightforward -- and it would be,
if we lived in a world where "Wiki norms" were clearly defined and
universally accepted. The problem there is that there is a great deal of
disagreement about what those norms should be, as well as what should be
done in any particular case, and disagreement often leads to exactly the
kind of personal judgments about character and fitness to be an admin in
general that you make here: "These are the expected standards [chosen by me
- who else?], we need people who exemplify them, and if you don't either
because you can't or don't want to, you're not fit to be an admin and should
be desysopped." That is profoundly alienating in practice, and you cannot
win people over to your point of view when your approach is that
authoritarian -- and it is the "norm" on AN/I.

If I had to read minds, I'd guess that this is exactly what Jimbo was trying
to avoid when he said adminiship is not a big deal. Obviously, it has become
a big deal, but not for any good reason, and you're going to continue to
lose valuable contributors as long as this continues to be the standard.

- causa sui