RuneScape:Wiki Post/Editorials/Adminship: A Popularity Contest?

Written by: Soldier 1033

We are very fortunate here at the wiki because the community decides everything, and the community also gives our administrators powers. However, lately, I have noticed that RfAs (Requests for adminship) and RfFs (Requests for forum adminship) have been more about the “perks” and less about the actual administrative duties. Do not get me wrong, though; there is nothing wrong with wanting to become an administrator. Heck, even I wanted to become one for a little while before my RfA, but here is the catch: people want to become administrators just for the sake of saying that they have some sort of "power" even when they will have none. If you want to become an administrator because you want to do more to prevent vandalism, go for it. If you want to become an administrator because you want to impress your friends, you should not go for it.

The RfA and RfF processes were not always like this. In fact, I had not really noticed much of a chance up until several months ago. The candidate overview page is now almost always full of nominations, sometimes full of people that rarely edit the wiki.

I have and never will object to someone being given administrative privileges, regardless of whether or not I supported their RfA; however, if they do not understand why they are being given these privileges then they should be considering that on their own.

In my honest opinion, the way to end these "popularity contests" is to show people what being an administrator/forum administrator is really like. It is not fun and games, unless you consider staying up late and dealing with a computer program that is built to wreak havoc, or reverting edits made by contributors that decided to randomly change the prices of items to “99999999999” or some to add some random obscene phrase. Administration is a responsibility; administration is about setting a positive example for others to follow; administration is not about popularity.

05:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

4. Editorial Review: Do you agree with the previous editorial? Yes No