In the early days, when the English Wikipedia more or less was Wikipedia, there was no procedure for nominating or ratifying administrators, not were there the specialized duties we are currently expecting administrators to perform, such as monitoring of users on probation. Folks would ask on the mailing list and if they seemed reasonably OK, they were made administrators. I don't remember any tension about fighting for that status. If you became an administrator, you could then do more chores. Still true, but the expectation is sometimes higher.
Yes, it is somewhat outdated, but it remains true in a sense; administrators are on the same level as everyone else as far as content is concerned, pointing out that you are an administrator will not get you far in a content dispute, and carried far enough, will get you desysopped. There are occasional lapses and few folks sneak around a bit, but those who think being an administrator gives them authority over the most important thing in Wikipedia, content, are mistaken.
Fred
On Jan 17, 2006, at 9:42 PM, Habj wrote:
This statemant, "adminship is no big deal", originates from enwiki. Could someone please explain in what circumstances this saying was worded? I see it used meaning "adminship is no big deal, so you shouldn't be so careful who to elect for this task" as well as "adminship is no big deal, so you shouldn't try and find ways to get rid of admins who are obviously unsuitable for the job".
My guess is: this sentence originates from the truly virgin stage of wikipedia, where some people wanted to avoid others starting fighting for admin (or at the time, "sysop") status. Currently, I see no reason for the remaining of this statements in various places in the Wikipedia namespace in various wikipedias - none at all.
/Habj _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l