User:9cfilorux/Admin abuse

Admin abuse is a strange term that does not mean what it seems to mean: most phrases of the form "X abuse" refer to abuse of X, such as "child abuse", but admin abuse refers not to abusing admins, but to abuse by admins. The strangeness of this may be merely a coincidence, but it should be kept in mind as an aid to remembering the true nature of so-called "admin abuse".

Accusations of admin abuse

Admins are often accused of abusing their privileges in one way or another. The forms of accusation range from malicious accounts with names such as "SomeAdmin is a big fat poopy head" (or indeed not attacking anyone in particular, but rather admins in general: "An admin bit off my penis", "Anyone who blocks this account is gay") to carefully crafted arbitration cases full of countless TL;DR blocks of text. Sometimes there is an actual wrongdoing on the admin's part that necessitates some kind of action or at least admonishment, but often -- particularly when the accuser is an ordinary editor -- there is at least an undertone of jealousy and/or malice on the accuser's part, and in some cases the accusation is entirely bad-faith -- and not only when it is an obvious case of disruption highlighted by an attack username.

You probably believe, as I once did, that admins are more likely to be abusive and/or are inherently inferior. Neither of these charges are without merit. There is a wider range of mistakes and abuse that they can make and there is potential to do more severe damage, leading to more frequent suspicions of mistakes. In addition to real damage, however, there is also a good deal of perceived damage that may or may not be real.

Why admin abuse may be the editors' doing

Much of admin work is inherently controversial, though the dissenters be often few. Such positions of authority exist because humans are chaotic and cannot all be trusted to unconditionally further each other's good, and if they wish to have an orderly community there must be a select few who are trusted to keep it running smoothly. This is, of course, a "good" thing to do, but since it involves suppressing disorderly human nature, it angers that same human nature into believing that it has been unjustly suppressed. Indeed it is difficult to know what is unjust, but this applies as surely to the enforcer of the rules as to the object of said enforcement. It is easy to perceive a greater difficulty or even an intentional wrongdoing on the admin's part, even though the truth is likely to be the opposite -- admins do not, in most cases, get into power all by themselves or with the help of fairy dust -- simply because they are responsible for making a decision that is almost inevitably upsetting to someone or other. From there, one can conclude that all admins are inherently flawed, that they all used unjust means to gain their power, or should at least be looked upon with a higher degree of suspicion than ordinary editors.

Privilegism

This conclusion is similar to other forms of group-based prejudice in that it is directed at a real or perceived superiority that is believed to be either undeserved, unfair or harmful to those who do not have it. The difference is that admins really are in a position of advantage, but that does not mean that the bias against them is any more justified. Due to this resemblance, it may be referred to as privilegism (discrimination based on privilege).

Conclusion

Admins are in no way inferior. They have been trusted with the privilege of keeping human nature in order, and they should be proud that they are trusted rather than ashamed of what they do. They should rejoice in the knowledge that they have nothing inherent to be ashamed of. However, they must still hold themselves to a higher standard, not only because it is easier for them to make mistakes, but because they are more likely to be looked upon with suspicion and disdain.

Wherever you may find yourself on the wiki hierarchy, remember never to have the primary goal of getting someone desysopped or blocked. One's primary objective should never concern who does what but rather what is done. If you are plotting to get someone's privileges removed, or considering such plotting, you must always ask yourself: are you doing this for your own benefit, or for a select few? or for the community at large?

See also

• Wikipedia:Adminitis
• WP:AGF
• Wikipedia:WikiSpeak -- presents several different views on admins; compare and contrast the definitions of, say, "administrator" and "controversial administrator"
• WP:TINC
• Wikipedia:There is a cabal
• Dunning–Kruger effect
• Peter Principle
• User:9cfilorux/What an admin is and why