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Yes, it is somewhat outdated, but it remains true in a sense;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(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l