[WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 05:21 AM 6/1/2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
>I think this is something to untangle. We need to get to the bottom of
>the community's fears about "overpowerful" admins, by talking through
>and delineating what a single admin can expect to face in awkward
>situations.

Yes.

>I've never been in favour of restricting admin discretion,
>which is really what is being proposed.

It's not what I'm proposing. Discretion should be almost unlimited as 
to primary action; however, there should be much better guidelines so 
that admins can know what to expect. WP:IAR is a fundamental and very 
important principle, but that doesn't negate that if one ignores 
rules, one should be prepared to face criticism and be required to 
explain why or face warning and possible suspension of privileges.

>We can't anticipate the
>challenges the site will face (even though it may appear that there is
>little innovation from vandals and trolls).

There are structural devices which can make vandalism and even 
editorial review much more efficient, and there are trends in that 
direction. When Wikipedia starts valuing editorial labor, and sets up 
systems to make it more efficient and reliably effective, it may get 
over the hump. I've suggested that it may be appropriate to start 
channeling labor into what I've called "backstory," i.e., 
documentation of why an article is the way it is. Then, if a new 
editor disagrees, that editor can quickly come up to speed on the 
history, see all the arguments and evidence organized, and would not 
be imprisoned by that, but rather might be encouraged, if some 
argument there is defective, to show that, to expand the consensus 
there. And then that can be taken back to the article. Articles 
should not slide back and forth, that is incredibly wasteful. They 
should grow, such that consensus is always that they have improved by 
a change. Flagged revisions is a piece of this puzzle.

>  I do think admins can be
>held to account for their use of discretion. Right now it seems that a
>piece of the puzzle is missing: admins don't know clearly how they stand
>in relation to the actions of other admins.

I developed, early on, a sense of how Wikipedia worked, and it made a 
great deal of sense in terms of the organizational theory I was 
familiar with. And then I discovered that only some administrators 
seemed to understand it. Others believed that the structure was 
something else. I saw no disruption coming from administrators who 
understood the concepts that seemed obvious to me. It came from the 
others. Recusal policy should be far more clear. But that's not the 
first priority. The first priority is establishing consensus process 
that is more efficient; the inefficiency discourages participation 
and causes proposals that might actually help to go nowhere. "No consensus."

That should be a clear suggestion for "refer to committee." That's 
what successful organizations do when faced with a problem where the 
response is not clear. (And then committee composition and rules and 
process become very important.)