Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Pbsouthwood

Some user stats:

• Pages edited (total) 7,352
• Average edits per page 6
• Pages created 918 (164 since deleted)
• Pages moved 75
• Pages deleted 0
• Files
• Files uploaded 9
• Files uploaded (Commons) 3,897
• Edits (live)
• (Semi-)automated edits 3,346 · (7.8%)
• Edits with summaries 40,418 · (94%)
• Minor edits 1,030 · (2.4%)
• Small edits (<20 bytes)* 3,426 · (68.5%)
• Large edits (>1000 bytes)* 102 · (2%)

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

* Data limited to the past 5,000 edits wumbolo ^^^ 21:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

XTools wikitext table print-out Mz7 (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Generated using XTools on 2018-05-30 22:46 General statistics User ID 10044298 User groups autoconfirmed, autoreviewer, extendedconfirmed, extendedmover, patroller, reviewer, rollbacker, user Is administrator? 0 First edit 2009-08-05 15:54 Latest edit 2018-05-30 16:45 Live edits 42,994 (98.3%) Deleted edits 745 (1.7%) Total edits 43,739 Edits in the past 24 hours 23 Edits in the past 7 days 491 Edits in the past 30 days 3,410 Edits in the past 365 days 15,821 Average edits per day 13.6 (3,220 days) Average edit size* 123.3 bytes Pages Pages edited (total) 7,355 Average edits per page 5.947 Pages created 918 (164 since deleted) Pages moved 75 Pages deleted 0 Files Files uploaded 9 Files uploaded (Commons) 3,897 Edits (live) (Semi-)automated edits 3,346 (7.8%) Edits with summaries 40,435 (94%) Minor edits 1,030 (2.4%) Small edits (<20 bytes)* 3,425 (68.5%) Large edits (>1000 bytes)* 100 (2%) Actions Thank 253 Approve 67 Patrol 6 Accounts created 0 (Re)blocks Longest block – Current block – Global edit counts (approximate) ►en.wikipedia.org 43,431 commons.wikimedia.org 16,082 en.wikivoyage.org 13,666 www.wikidata.org 4,204 en.wikiversity.org 987 meta.wikimedia.org 797 af.wikipedia.org 755 it.wikivoyage.org 343 wikimania2018.wikimedia.org 292 fr.wikivoyage.org 253 * Data limited to the past 5,000 edits

"No big deal"

SQL, your support seems predicated on dismissing the issues raised by opposers without actually addressing them, then declaring "Adminship should be no big deal." We should also have world peace, an end to hunger, and a cure for cancer. Adminship not being a big deal is the same kind of idealized wish-making (even if perhaps a goal to inch toward). Adminship has very definitely been a big deal for about the last decade, maybe more like 12 years. Maybe it shouldn't be that way, but it is, and the community made it that way.

I think this is an organizational lifecycle matter. WP transitioned from a wild-and-wooly, early-adopters, visionary experiment phase into a global institution rather quickly, and that necessarily meant internal governance shifts which can't really be undone without starting from scratch (the way various failing companies sometimes do successfully). WP isn't failing, so there's not much incentive to go there. Despite various Chicken Little cries, the admin pool is actually stable and getting the important behind-the-scenes work done, so we are not in a position of having to approve iffy candidates (iffy because of temperament/competence or, as in this case, because of focus/rationale misalignment).

There might be a way to make adminship less of a big deal, but it's going to take a lot of work and lot of community buy-in, which so far has not happened, despite some clear ways of getting there, like unbundling more of the less dangerous tools to increase the pool of competent "quasi-admins"; have adminship term limits and reconfirmation, instead of for-life, all-or-nothing appointments; and various other approaches we all know are likely to be effective but which too few people will outright support due to sheer terror that any change to the adminship system will cause a trainwreck.

Maybe that is a discussion to have at WT:ADMIN, but I felt compelled to comment here because "opposers are wrong because I disagree" posturing isn't a real rationale, and "adminship should be no big deal" isn't a valid one today, either.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

PS: In fairness, Laser_brain also trotted out the "no big deal" canard. I agree with L_b's other sentiment, about broadening the admin pool to all competent editors, but this is another of the adminship reform ideas that's been proposed again and again only to be shot down by the community (and to an extent by WMF itself; they claim there's a legal reason that everyone can't just be made an admin automatically after some tenure as a constructive and non-disruptive editor).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I mean there is literially this link WP:NOBIGDEAL that says it isn't a big deal. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 20:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes indeed, Zchrykng; in 2003 :D You remember, when we used to be the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, prior to becoming—err—the fifth, etc., most-visited website in the world. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 20:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the "no big deal" phrase can come across as dismissive of opposition. I do indeed dismiss most of the opposition's concerns as no big deal. Whenever these run, I can't help but to imagine what my own RFA would look like if it was held today. I don't go anywhere near AfD or any number of other areas where admins work, because I either don't care about them or I don't like them, and I'm bemused to imagine that people would find that reason to oppose my hypothetical modern RfA. Because I contribute well, and exercise good judgement and a thoughtful approach to situations. Those are the only criteria that should matter. That's what I (and maybe others) mean when we say it's no big deal. Someone buzzing around my contributions to point out that I don't have enough Portal Talk edits etc doesn't land on any useful conclusion. --Laser brain (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I think this issue is often presented as a false dichotomy. The fact that we don't give adminship to everyone who's proved themselves to be competent at general editing doesn't mean that it's "a really special thing" (to quote Jimbo). It just means that, like a lot of things, you have to show you know how to use it properly before you can get it. I think a good real world analogy is drivers' licences. Nobody who isn't a teenager thinks that having one of those is really special, but you also aren't able to get one without demonstrating that you can be trusted to drive a car safely. Hut 8.5 21:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The other meaning of "no big deal" is that being an administrator is no big deal. It mostly allows you to do a bunch of unpaid and thankless maintenance work. In particular, it doesn't gain you any advantage in content disputes. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x2 Plus one on pretty much everything by McAndlish (yes, really) SN and LB. It is a big deal nowadays, as I think many Admins would probably agree, if they thought about it fully. – SchroCat (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)