User:JesseW/adminship

Some thoughts of mine, on adminship, and Wikipedia in general.

It has been suggested, repeatedly, that we make it more possible to de-admin people, and that it's a problem that adminship is, barring massive malfesence, a permanent appointment. I don't think this is a problem.

In general (AFAIK) it's pretty hard to get kicked out of Wikipedia. There are a number of subtle mistakes that new users can make, that can get them blocked, or even get their accounts permanent blocked; this is true. However, such actions also generate pretty clear warnings and explanations of how not to repeat them, and how to join the community in a good way, so any person who wishes to, can.

If they pass the traps of a new user (i.e. under 100 edits as a rough measure), they are quite unlikely to be kicked out; they may be temporarily blocked (for things like 3RR), if they work in controversial areas, but (again, AFAIK) it takes an aweful lot of trouble-making to get yourself perama-blocked, assuming you've made 50+ accepted edits.

The point of all of this is that privilages on Wikipedia are a pretty one-way street - once you've made a few hundred edits that no-body objects to, you're a known contributor, and it's very hard to lose that status; once you've made a few thousand accepted, non-controversial edits, you're a generally respected contributor, and it's also even harder to lose that status; once you've passed an RfA, you're an admin; there's nothing wrong with having that status be even harder to lose.

The point is - if someone has made 3000 edits, and failed to piss many people off, that's a lot of non-pissed off people; such support shouldn't be ignored or dicounted. That's why I don't think it's a problem that adminship is (more or less) a one-way processs.