User talk:Pigman/Musings on Adminship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Cranky admins

I think that in something like nine of ten cases, an admin who comes across as either tyrannical or demeaning is probably reacting to having had the exact same bloody conversation for the hundredth time with another clueless but agressive new editor, and is just girding up for the "inevitable". I know I've done this. In fact, I've done it with admins. The other one just needs to be de-'oped but has yet to do the outrageous thing that will make it happen. Of course, I'm just making that one in ten number up, and I actually doubt that RfA is passing even that many lunatics.

If there is a problem, it is that we've conflated "someone we trust to have the power to block accounts/delete things/protect pages" with "someone responsible for making the website run". Everyone who cares about the Wikipedia project should feel some sort of responsibility for the latter. This confusion is being made worse by the fact that Wikipedia is now bumping up against the real world in ways that many people don't like. We have a lot of mechanisms for working things out amongst ourselves, and they work reasonably well for people with or without admin tools, but there are now things, like copyright and libel issues, that admins are dealing with that makes the line through "I'm expressing my personal opinion as an editor", "I'm making a call on policy or guideline but will get someone else to mediate if needed" and "I'm taking immediate action to prevent real-world consequences and there's no room for discussion about it" unfortunately blurred. Wikipedia really does work on consensus, not because of some high-minded ideal, but because it is just practically impossible to get things done that a large number of people disagree with, but, at the same time, we're asking admins to do things that a large number of people disagree with.

All of that said, I'd suggest that there is something in people that looks for an authority to fix things for them, and also to enter into conflict with in order to demonstrate their iconoclasm, while any admin who has been around for a while has gotten thouroughly jaded by hearing someone cry wolf too many times, while other editors have been primed to go looking for maliciousness from the petty aristocracy in this supposed libertarian free-for-all. There's no on-site fix to any of those things that is obvious to me. More sophisticated anti-vandalism software will, I imagine, decrease what feels like a pressing need for combative admins eventually, and that will definitely improve things. And really, some obvious counterexamples aside, user RFCs aren't dramatic, but they often have the desired effect. If there are admins who are really making the website a less pleasant place for people who are here to give away a free, fact-checked, neutral encyclopedia, they need to be identified and get feedback from the community that they've gone off-course. Jkelly 07:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that I have ever seen that much unwikified text on en: that wasn't a copyvio before. Jkelly 07:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your calm thoughts in the face of what I intended to be a deliberately provocative section of the essay. In my experience, instances of nasty admins such I describe are really quite rare. And I can usually tell when it's just wiki-fatigue or momentary annoyance with the umpteenth replay of the same old situation. I understand that much of what passes for "administration" (as in admins) on WP is really just the bare minimum to keep the cogs turning and the project basically running in the right direction.
However, there's a level at which I am sometimes frustrated by the very "hands-off" approach by most admins to some forms of conflict between "regular" editors. While I don't think admins need to mediate every spat or squabble, I sometimes wish there was a more assertive and proactive approach in some situations. I realize there's a conflict between this concept and the generally laissez-faire attitude on WP that people can often work out their differences without such intervention. And usually they can.
I'm not sure what my point is here. Perhaps I'm just wincing and whinging from my own unpleasant experiences. Anyways, thanks for the comments. Pigmandialogue 08:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Jkelly wrote:
I'd suggest that there is something in people that looks for an authority to fix things for them, and also to enter into conflict with in order to demonstrate their iconoclasm,
I agree with this, and see examples of it every day. I also agree that it's very easy to get testy when the same incidents happen over and over. In my work on CVU patrol, and various other housekeeping tasks, I also sometimes struggle to not bite the newbies. When a new user is kind and grateful for the help, I am relieved and find it quite easy to be kind in return, but when treated like someone's parent/teacher/cop they need to rebel against, it's tough to be patient after a while. I'm actually more worried about the laissez faire tendencies among so many admins, and the situations we've seen where some RfAs have passed people who avoid conflicts, while not passing some excellent contributors who have a history of standing up to the trolls. Similarly, I've seen situations where some admins were reluctant to protect a page that had heavy edit-warring, thinking it would "die down eventually", and leaving others to constantly revert vandalism on the article, to the point of burnout. My favorite admins are the ones who aren't afraid to take a stand, to thwack the trolls and defend both the project and the good contributors who may not be as thick-skinned. Those are my favorite kind of Wikipedians in general, much as in real life I admire courage, strength, and the willingness to stand up for what is right, even if it means personal risk. Unfortunately, sometimes those who are willing to take a stand on Wikipedia are scary to those who believe "neutrality" means inaction. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 09:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC) (this may come back to bite me, as well. oh well :-))