Emily Monroe <bluecalioc...@me.com> wrote:
>> When we see ex-wikipedians complaining about abusive admins, they
>> often didn't meet actual administrators, but self-appointed gate
>> keepers.
>
> Any way to make admin status more obvious? I mean, I know being an
> admin isn't supposed to be a big deal, but obviously a newcomer (or
> even an oldcomer) may get mistake an experienced editor for an admin.
> This makes a difference in not only semantics, but the tasks that an
> editor would be expected to take on, etc.
Hm. Very good point. Maybe a little template for admin sigs
("template:adsig") would work as a requirement for admins who are
acting/commenting in an administrative capacity. Or else it can be an
all-on requirement in prefs.
Likely not being the first, I actually thought of this sort of thing
for other officers. The idea there is that officers need to signify
which of their comments are made in an official capacity.
Jimbo's most important function was just *the spreading of good will*
by making considered judgments in the field, backed up largely by the
authority given to him through public trust. While the latter
responsibility ("lights") has fallen to the Foundation, the *earlier
responsibilities* have fallen to Arbcom. Thus the only issue with
making them mobile and active, is resolving any ostensible conflicts
of interest that apparently inhibit their mobility.
-Stevertigo
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
