User:Bibliomaniac15/Commentary and Critical Essays

This is where I'd like to write up my ideas and interpretations of Wikipedia policies, essays, and other materials by other Wikipedians. If you'd like to write one on this page, you're welcome to.

=Essays and Commentary=

Adminship: A Big Deal? by User:bibliomaniac15
I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*. I think perhaps I'll go through semi-willy-nilly and make a bunch of people who have been around for awhile sysops. I want to dispel the aura of "authority" around the position. It's merely a technical matter that the powers given to sysops are not given out to everyone. I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing
 * - Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia co-founder

Often, when looking around at RFA or maybe even ANI, you very probably will encounter some sort of reference to this quote. Personally, I find nothing wrong with it, but I do greatly dislike to misapplication of such a quote. This turns it into a sort of change analogous to the "Money is the root of all evil" saying; its original meaning has been altered into a very different meaning and connotation.

It's important to remember that sysoppery is inherently an important role in a wiki, but the self-perceived glorification of such a position is NOT important, the context of Wales' quote. Often, people will say, "Oh, adminship isn't a big deal, let's go and sysop this user." Again, the tools of adminship are very important, but there is no such thing as a hierarchy in Wikipedia (save authority given by Jimbo, the Wikimedia Foundation, and ArbCom).

Why is adminship inherently important?
 * 1) The tools require certain criteria. The point of RFA is to examine whether the user in question is experienced and self-controlled enough to gain the mop. If a user has a track record of being massively uncivil, it is inevitable that they will lose control and abuse their tabs. This leads us to our next point.
 * 2) Not everyone is suited for adminship. Obviously, vandals are definitely ineligible, but some users just never learn, they retain their initial noobishness.
 * 3) The tools have the potential for mass disruption. As we have seen through the compromisation of 4 admin accounts, the deletion of the Main Page, and the random blocking of users, the tools are dangerous if used in the wrong hands. A brilliant sword does not a hero make, nor does the mopbucket an admin make.
 * 4) It is important that a user is cool, experienced, and able to use their head. We cannot hope to benefit the encyclopedia if we rush into a dispute without using our head.

The problem is not RFA, it's our standards
After mulling over the whole debacle with DHMO's RFA, I've come to a conclusion that RFA is not broken, rather, it's the behavior in these and the total capriciousness of the voters that are quite atrocious. RFA is a fickle thing, and the user either basically has to be an angel or a politician to pass. Simple and concise answers cause others to deride candidates for "not having a use for the mop" while "too many RFAs" cause one to be attacked for being power hungry. People confident that they can do something great for the encyclopedia and self nom themselves are attacked for being egotistic and power-hogging. People who obviously understand the rules and know how to apply them (i.e. Cobi) are invariably shot down, while someone who kisses up and works on a few articles (Archtransit) is unanimously passed! Have we no shame? I agree that we will inevitably be deceived, but why do we pan everybody that has not directly contributed? Why have we rejected those who work on the sidelines and deprived them of the privilege of helping at the greater level?