Wikipedia talk:What adminship is not

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Not a trophy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: see also WP:ACC. >Radiant< 12:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I agree with the user above. Many user submit RfAs so they can have greater anti-vandal powers. We should point out that adminship is not all about going around banning vandals. There are other things involved. Captain panda In vino veritas 03:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not a Sherrif's badge

message: any reason why the words "admin", "adminship" and "administrator" are repeatedly wikilinked in the essay? Doldrums 11:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably mindless habit by the writers.  Just leave it alone. YechielMan 13:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  repeated wikilinks 

message: 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)
thread_title:  not compulsive 

message: I think this should be policy. The status of an administrator at the moment is the equivalent of a a sergeant - they're the "official face" of Wikipedia. Some sysops use this status to manipulate normal users ("I'm the boss, if you don't like it, get blocked" or "Admins know what's best for the community"). Should become policy, we have ground in dealing with the many disputes concerning admin abuse. At the moment, the only authority that decides what is admin abuse is the Arbitration Committee. Perhaps we can introduce desysopship at the RfC level. -- Selmo (talk) 00:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Desysopping at RfC level will require much more than a policy explaining some things that adminship is not. It will almost certainly require a policy explicitly saying it can happen, for that matter. And to whom is the status of an admin that of a sergeant? I can't say I know if half the people I see are admins, and I wouldn't care if I did know. -Amarkov blahedits 03:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly would support desysopping at RfC level on the basis of 2/3 support for a specific motion in the form of an outside view. Agree this would have to be a clear policy to give the necessary guidance for the stewards, who would enforce it. Regarding this essay being upgraded, following discussion with Radiant and thinking it over, I'll support. Addhoc 11:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *While I'm not adverse to some kind of proposal to improve admin accountability, this page as written is really nothing of the sort. At the moment the page lists a number of opinions on what adminship entails, which indeed are commonsensical, but are not even remotely actionable. That pretty much is the definition of an essay. I think you should leave this page as it was, take a look at WP:RFDA and base a new proposal on that. I would recommend against using RFC for the purpose since RFCs have a tendency to become a cesspool; I would also recommend thinking hard about possible abuse. We do not want a situation where admins are routinely taken to task by the disruptive users they deal with as part of their "job". >Radiant< 13:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This page isn't listing anything actionable, nor is it listing anything more than opinion. It would not make clear policy. —BorgHunter  (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed agian... 

message: I was thinking about highlighting in bold that Adminship will not be given to help your real life become better and Adminship will only be given to help Wikipedia become better, because I consider those particularly important statements.
--Wikipedier 22:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adminship not given to help your real life become better 

message: At first I thought admins or sysops might be employees of the site, but perhaps we can highlist this for new users.  It's done on spanish wikipedia.  BuickCenturyDriver 12:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volunteers, not employees 

message: In the "Not a Game" section, it states nominating someone "is not a game and is very serious". However, WP:ADMIN#No big deal states that adminship is "no big deal". These points seem to contradict each other. Could someone explain this? J-ſtanTalkContribs 13:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point, and I couldn't possibly provide an explanation. Having said that at this stage this is only an essay, although it seems to have enough consensus in general to be like a guideline, similar to the popular Wikipedia essay WP:ATA.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 13:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a Game 

message: I rephrased the "Admins are users the community trusts" point since I had to read through it a couple of times before its meaning became clear. Hope it still conveys the desired message. Olaf Davis | Talk 13:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  General 

message: Isn't the tone of that section rather too harsh? And wouldn't the third person be better? What do people think? It Is Me Here (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:ANOT#GAME]] 

message: Would something along these lines fit with this essay:
Unlike Judge Dredd, admins should not believe that "I am the Law!". Admins should also avoid Cartman's attitude that editors must "Respect my authority!". Fences&Windows 18:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Not Judge Dredd