Wikipedia talk:What adminship is not

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Suggested bullet point: "A big deal" with the words, "Per Jimbo's statements here" with here being linked to his statement. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Except, there's a considerable number of people who feel it is a big deal now. --Durin 21:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  Trust me, I'm well aware of that fact. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I love the page. I think it is fiction, but I love it. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 13:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Not a trophy 2 Not a Sherrif's badge 3 Proposed 4 repeated wikilinks 5 not compulsive

[edit] Not a trophy

This section doesn't make sense. To begin with, it is an affirmation of your standing in the community. The point of an RFA is to determine whether people feel they know you well enough to trust you with a few extra tools. People saying that they trust you is affirmation of your contributions. But it's the second part that doesn't make sense - what does this have to do with "Administrator status does not place you in an elevated status within Wikipedia"? AFAIK, trophies don't elevate your status. Guettarda 14:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it means that adminship is not automatically awarded to people for hard work. It isn't some kind of "badge of hounour". It is just a few extra tools. Just because you've been around for awhile and made some good edits doesn't mean you are automatically entitled to adminship. At least that's how I read that section. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not a Sherrif's badge

I don't understand how "This means that all policies apply equally to all admins, just as they apply to non-privileged users" relates to the assertion that adminship is not a sherrif's badge? This seems to presuppose that cops are corrupt, out of control hooligans (true in some cases, but I doubt that's a generally useful analogy). Guettarda 14:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

You are right. What if we changed it to "Adminship is not a licence to kill"? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the Sheriff's badge paragraph is not really saying anything that the "diplomatic immunity" one isn't, and that one makes more sense (since diplomatic immunity puts someone "above the law" while a sheriff's badge does not). I'm going to go ahead and remove the sheriff's badge paragraph. —Cleared as filed. 02:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

see also WP:ACC. >Radiant< 12:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten diplomatic immunity to restore some of the sheriff text and generally clarify the point. John Reid 08:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like the "sheriff's badge" section put back. The reason for having it was the flood of users who apply for adminship (more often than not self-nom), citing the need to go and fight vandals. People have taken adminship to be a, as was cited above, license to kill. I think that while "diplomatic immunity" covers the topic, it doesn't put it in the same context of "wikipedia is not a fight. adminship is not membership on one side of that fight. vandals are a problem, not a faction." etc. In its present context, the proposed policy (I fail to see how it could become a policy anyways, it's more of an essay) lacks the admonition to not go forth and conquer. aa v ^ 17:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed

I tagged this page {{proposed}} and came back to find the tag removed with edit sum you do not have to propose essays, you just write them. While this is certainly true and while the original author may or may not have considered this an essay, I'm proposing this as policy. I understand that it may not take effect right away. John Reid 08:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

?

I tagged this page again and the tag has been rm with edit sum this is not something that can ever be a policy, since it contains nothing actionable or enforceable; again, without the courtesy of a comment here on talk. I feel very strongly that:

1. This is eligible to be policy; and

2. It may be good policy.

Please understand that I'm only speaking to the first point here; that's all that's appropriate.

It's clear that this proposal sets limits on admins. Saying you are not privileged is a more direct way of saying do not act as if you were privileged. This proposal implies enforcement; saying do not do this is a simple and direct way of saying if you do this then some penalty will be applied to you. These are things that even small children are taught.

If you insist on explicit, mandated actions and penalties, look no further than Admins must follow all Wikipedia policies, such as... and Admins can be blocked... I'd like to think that mature people can infer expected behavior from the entire proposed policy, however. It's not that hard unless you're a jailhouse lawyer. To summarize:

• It is our policy that admins are not excepted from rules applying to all users; that admins must not conduct themselves as members of a privileged class; and that admins who place themselves above the common group may be placed back within its ranks.

Actionable and enforceable. I suggest that anyone who opposes the mere consideration of this policy proposal desires for himself the very privilege denied here. John Reid 17:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I intended this as an essay, though I have no strong feelings against it being a proposed guideline or policy. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this is instruction creep, and though the points made are valid, I don't believe that having them linked from RFA and related places is necessarily helpful in explaining to people what adminship really is. I also believe that some people are going to see adminship as a trophy however much we might wish that weren't the case. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I just want to point out that "I suggest that anyone who opposes the mere consideration of this policy proposal desires for himself the very privilege denied here" is an example of the Fallacy of many questions and an Appeal to motive. 134.10.12.35 00:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

With this guideline, why would anyone would want to apply for adminship? The proposed guideline needs also to include a summary of what adminship is. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It's an interesting essay, and I think for the most part everybody agrees with this stuff, but in practice I have (personally) often given an administrator the benefit of the doubt when it comes to questionable actions, since they have been through a verification process. In this sense adminship is not a trophy, but it does earn some degree of respect and trust. Deco 19:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but this verification process is as weak as can possibly be. It's all to easy for people to get admined by a few of their buddies. Even the language (i.e. being "promoted") endorses a kind of "authority" or rank. They are not supposed to be anything but normal editors who have access to a few petty tools. The only authority they have... is none. They perhaps have more experience editing, but they need to follow the policies like everyone else. They have, though, generally been around the block and earned a degree of trust. Problem is, there's no penalty for admins who disregard policy under the guise that it's a mere "guideline". The system is very very poor and we will see the results of that over the next year as more and more people, including vandals and trolls, find newer and more creative ways to test the system.

Note: I myself have had to go out of my way to tell people that I am not in charge of anything. Some fault lies with users who assume admins are in charge of something. It's an illusion, but some admins allow to go on for whatever reason, but I would never dream of letting someone think I had any kind of authority here. Any one-edit anon is as free to give me a vandal warning as I am to him.

But as far as policing a bureaucracy... that's a perennial question not unique to Wikipedia. You'll never be able to police everything. Limits need to be incorporated into the structure to some extent. But ideas are always welcome, and a good one may come up yet we haven't forseen. I'm very interested in (civil) discussion on this matter. --DanielCD 14:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it, is that adminship is based on a good application of meritocracy. You don't get the support of your peers, unless you have shown that you care for the project and are willing to spend quite a bit of your free time. Take the countless hours invested by admins out of WP, and what do you get? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This is true. They (we) do form sort of a backbone to the project. I'm not trying to put down the idea of administrators, I'm just trying to get a grip on the issues, as there seems to be quite a variety. --DanielCD 17:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I've again restored {{proposed}} to this page. This is the last time I'll do so; but I take some exception to the repeated removal. You're welcome to object to the policy proposal; but it's just plain wrong to pretend that it has not been proposed. John Reid 03:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] repeated wikilinks

any reason why the words "admin", "adminship" and "administrator" are repeatedly wikilinked in the essay? Doldrums 11:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] not compulsive

It's not compulsive to become an admin, but, if you become one, is it compulsive to use your powers? Wikibooks has made it mandatory to do a certain amount of admin-only actions like vandal fighting or you lose your adminship. I think that's silly. — Omegatron 16:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)