Forum:Administrators

So what I'm thinking is, a thing that's important for future progress on the wiki, is that the role of the administrator/bureaucrat needs to be clarified somewhat. We have this, which is hardly ever adhered to. It should come as no surprise to anyone that administrators have come to be seen as "leaders" of some sort, while the policy there obviously dictates otherwise; I argue this is not entirely their fault, as most were never asked to be the arbiter of people's disputes. While having become an admin is in most cases a relatively dependable indicator of one's savvy when it comes to content and similar matters, other situations... not so much.

I think this should be adhered to a much stronger degree than before, enforced by other administrators if possible. Of particular importance is a blocking "ranking" system of sorts; what sort of infractions warrant this and that timeframe of blocking? It's important to keep this as separate from personal opinions regarding block length, which diverge MASSIVELY as one certain recent event will tell you, as possible. I'm thinking contacting administrators for their professional contributory skills should be limited strictly to things requiring action when debate has already been completed... if their input is otherwise needed, they should expect to be answered by just another contributor with no more authority over the matter than they have. It's important to stress this as new arrivals (and even some seasoned contributors) seem to view us as "bosses" with some sort of power.

Basically, I'm suggesting more power be transferred to the community as a whole, not resting in the hands of a small number of people. Discuss. --Auron  Kaizer !  10:41, September 11, 2011 (UTC)