Wikipedia:Requests for comment/No big deal?

Once upon a time (over ten years ago), Jimbo stated that "becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*." To this day, we often hear his statement cited in individual Requests for adminship, as well as other RfA–related discussions. However, many would argue that the "No big deal" mindset does not accurately reflect the present view of the community. With all of the talk about how difficult the RfA process has become, one might reason that most !voters do not act like adminship is not a big deal. In this RfC, you are asked to objectively answer one simple question: Does the Wikipedia community currently treat adminship as if it is no big deal?

Yes

 * Yes, they do, and that's bad. Many just vote without familiarizing themselves with the candidate, most often support voters in order to make friends. I feel like I'm replying to a loaded question (that we should follow Jimbo's old comment) and that some hard feelings are involved (Requests for adminship/AutomaticStrikeout. My apology if I'm mistaken.).--Razionale (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You are at least partially incorrect. It's a good thing that my request for adminship was not successful, as I'm still not ready to be an admin. If the question needs to be restructured, you guys can do it. Obviously, the way I wrote it out isn't working. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 19:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There are many different ways that one can interpret the vague idiom, "no big deal". If you're asking us whether adminship is "no big deal", in the context of Jimbo's original usage of that term, then I'd say yes.  So, let's take a look at Jimbo's original usage.  He follow up the "no big deal" remark with "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 agree with that statement.  It is well-known (and documented in countless policies) that admins don't have "authority" over non-admins.  Admins can't tell other editors what to do.  Admins do have the tools to enforce policy and ensure that policies are not being violated, but policy is created by everyone.  The next obvious question is whether or not the current attitudes at RfA reflect the notion that adminship is no big deal.  I would say that, largely, that attitude is widely held.  If a candidate shows that they have experience and have a clue, probably won't break anything too badly with the admin tools, and they have a history/reputation that shows they have the project's best interests in mind, then most people will support that candidate.  However, there is a sizable minority that, in my opinion, has standards for adminship that are too stringent, and are not in line with the notion that adminship is no big deal.  Many of these users seem to be bitter as a result of perceived mistreatment by admin(s) in the past (e.g., blocks they didn't agree with). Perhaps some of their resentment is justified, but it doesn't help the project.  ‑Scottywong | prattle _  19:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes they do, but they should not. I cannot speak for RfA as I am not active there, but around the project there are many people who hold adminship up as some great status from which people look down as untouchables. This is completely wrong. I speak as someone who became an admin in 2005 when it wasn't a big deal and RfA was not yet broken. I continue to try and act with the principle of no big deal in mind, I'm just a contributor with a few more buttons, but if I get it wrong please tell me! Thryduulf (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes - I have rarely encountered a candidate for adminship who, while not a SNOW, experiences incredible opposition from groups of highly specialized users who don't like users who don't focus on ever increasingly smaller aspects of editing. A new admin can't simply use the Mop for janitor work, they must also be avid content creators, file managers, identified preferably, must not use automated tools... It's crazy, really. IMO. -T.I.M(Contact) 03:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

No

 * Admins are treated differently because they are admins. RfA is a gauntlet that attracts dysfunctional people to commnet and gives them a platform to attack others with relative impunity. The decline in the number of active admins is one if, if not the single most talked about subjects in the noticeboards. It's a big deal because we make it a big deal. It doesn't have to be though, it's not at all a big deal on Wikidata because we're not as socially dysfunctional over there.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  22:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sven pretty much says what I want to say. NBD does not (currently) mean adminship isn't a big deal, it means adminship shouldn't be a big deal. If this is a problem, it's with the community itself, not the process.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Undecided

 * I think it's no big deal whether people think it's a big deal or not. It might be a big deal if Wikipedia ran out of admins, or if several really bad people became admins. Let us know when either of these things happens. Victor Yus (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes and No. Adminship usually isn't a big deal around here until an admin does something wrong anyway. It is a big deal if they misuse the bit or are insensitive to non-admin. I think Scotty sums it up pretty well above, and part of the perceived problem with editors who feel wronged by admin in the past, to which there is some merit to in select cases.  We are divided on what we want out of our admins.  Some want only to have admin who are proven content generating machines.  Others are more concerned about the demeanor of the person, knowing they can stay calm under pressure.  Those are often mutually exclusive skills, hence the division at RfA.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 01:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Other

 * Adminship is a medium-sized deal. I posted this flippantly the other day, but actually it's about right. Adminship is not such a big deal that we should risk voting down a dozen qualified candidates rather than make one mistake, but neither is it something trivial. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Adminship is no big deal, but becoming an admin is. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments

 * No objection to this RfC, although I'm opposed to the watchlist notice. Eventually, the people who are working on these things will hit on something that most of us can agree on, and when that happens, we don't want the larger community to already be worn out by the discussion, we want them to be ready to hear what we have to say. - Dank (push to talk) 22:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe. However, I don't think it would be unproductive to find out what people think about the process. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 22:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Appears to be yet more obsessive navel gazing. Other topics exist! Leaky  Caldron  23:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have to find fault with me all the time? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 23:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This section is for comments on the RfC. I have made a comment on the RfC. Leaky  Caldron  23:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Very well. Regarding your comment, I am well aware of other topics that exist, but that doesn't require me to be interested in them. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 23:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I somewhat agree with Leaky Cauldron, I think the WP:NOBIGDEAL section currently adequately gets across JW's original intent and the current interpretation. What are we going to do with, for example, a 80/20 result in favour of "it is quite a big deal, depending on what exactly you mean by 'big deal' and 'it'"?  Jebus989 ✰ 15:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think there's a disconnect between asking an individual to answer an opinion question objectively. Saying that it's a simple question is also somewhat misleading. It may look simple, but it's really not. Intothatdarkness 15:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * By objectively, I meant that I wanted people to honestly answer the question without being influenced by whether or not they like the present state of affairs. In other words, I want to know if you think adminship is currently treated like a big deal. I'm not asking how you think it should be, but how you think it really is. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 16:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You may have a hard time getting that simply because (I think) most peoples' view of the admin situation has been formed by what their role here happens to be. "The community" is a handy shorthand, but the reality is that there are a number of communities in operation here, and each is going to have a different view of the admin role and process. Someone who is an admin, for example, is going to have a different objective opinion based on their particular community than someone who's predominantly a content creator, and that view will again be different than that held by a wikignome. This isn't a new observation, of course, but I'd just caution that you can't really get an "objective view from the community" when in fact little is really objective and the community is made up of several sub-communities, each with their own particular OWN of policy and view of the project. Intothatdarkness 16:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Very good point. At this juncture, I don't know if I'm going to get anything at all. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 16:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "I'm not asking how you think it should be, but how you think it really is." If that's all you're asking, what practical use would you make of the answer? --Stfg (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Good question. My answer would be that the results of this RfC can be used to demonstrate if adminship really is not a big deal. It's one thing for people to say from time to time that it's "no big deal", it's another thing for there to be solid evidence demonstrating that the community (or communities) agree(s). AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 16:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, but that's just using it to prove a point. It's not a practical use. To put it another way, so we learn that the community thinks this or that. What do you then want to do about it, either way? --Stfg (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a "big deal" when the wrong candidate is presented at the wrong time and supported by their wiki-pals. By wrong I mean, inexperienced, immature, lacking in judgement, controversial, ill-prepared or simply hat collecting/seeking "promotion". Any of these characteristics in any combination makes it a "big deal" because, with few exceptions, we are stuck with a poor Admin. for ever. It is not a big deal when a solid, reliable, mature candidate with proven sound judgement turns up seeking "selection" not "election". Typically people who have hardly been heard of in the drama boards (widely construed) make "no big deal" candidates compared to those who seem to prefer to draw attention to themselves at any opportunity. Leaky  Caldron  16:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that it varies based on the candidate? Food for thought. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 16:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say that's just ONE of the variables, although it's one of the more critical ones. Intothatdarkness 16:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This issue is not worth the effort of an RFC. There's other problems at Wikipedia that need fixing besides this.  A big meh.  -- Jayron  32  16:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Being a vague statement makes this about 5 different questions in one, making it too faulty to proceed as an RFC. Suggest splitting it up if this is to go any further.   North8000 (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In what ways would you recommend that it be split up? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 17:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

These would be my ideas (and answers) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) No big deal = "This is not a general upper class in Wikipedia, they are just doing their job, just as editors do their job"  Agree.
 * 2) No big deal = "It should be easy to become an admin"   Disagree.   The criteria should be different than the current criteria which is basically "have you kept your head low / avoided difficult situations?" / popularity contest / how many friends can you muster?   criteria, but it should be tough to get in.
 * 3)  No big deal = The job itself is no big deal.  Disagree  It covers a wide range of tasks that range from gnome work to actions that can destroy people's Wikipedia lives, and making immensely complex and difficult high-impact decisions. So sometimes, it is a big deal.
 * 4)  No big deal = Other than when acting officially, their opinion should not carry any more weight in a debate than other editors.  Somewhat agree.  Except, lacking other information,  and admins would on average be more vetted and more versed on Wikipedia a matters. So, lacking other information, it would be a bit of an indicator in those areas.


 * Navel-gazing is precisely what this is. The people to whom adminship means the greatest are, oddly enough, those courtiers who spend all day talking about it. For the most part, admins and non-admins alike get along just fine without any particular resentment or worship of the mop. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * RfC creator: Why would you ask something as convoluted as whether people think other people view adminship as no big deal, instead of just running your referendum on whether people themselves view it as a big deal? Not sure of the value of that discussion either, though. Gigs (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In retrospect, that might have been a better idea. AutomaticStrikeout ?  15:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)