A unique line of WPA scholarship highlights the bodily, mental, and emotional toll of administering writing programs, which has prompted analysis of the institutional mechanisms that produce frustration in WPA work. Writing programs are comprised of a wide range of (non)human institutional forces in often incoherent and unsustainable ways, which works to alienate individual administrators from their institutionalized subject-position because it prevents WPAs from recognizing themselves as good, or even coherent, administrators. In response, I argue that this multiplicity can be affirmed as a means of experimenting with the unique dynamics it makes available, but only if the recognizability of the "good WPA" is deliberately obscured. Thus, this affirmatively oriented mode of experimentation relies on, ironically enough, a careful practice of "not knowing" what it means to be a good WPA.