Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

No RfXs since 02:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Current time: 09:35:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Purge this page

2003 · 2004 · 2005 · 2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · 2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013 · 2014 · 2015 · 2016 · 2017

The subject of temporary adminship came up at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pbsouthwood. Posting here because it is a broiader issue and discussuon is likely to wander off-topic to that nomination. A couple of editors opined that this would be a worthwhile thing to do. I know it was discussed in the past with reference to non-admins being elected to ArbCom. Aparently, it has been done for WMF staff? I don't see any real obstacles to it. WP:Administrators says Administrators may request that their access to administrative tools be removed at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard. There is nothing that says that removal it cannot be requesated in advance. Anyone have any thoughts? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I disagree that you can't demonstrate competence, as for the most part the tools are fairly straightforward and operate like everything else around here. What you need to demonstrate is judgment, and there are dozens of places where participating does just that. More importantly, I'm not sold that such a process would be sufficient to satisfy the WMF as regards viewing deleted content. Although admittedly it does seem more involved than many of our sister projects' systems. ~ Amory (utc) 10:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Personally I advocate for the RfA shift that would invalidate arguments purely based on certain grounds if a sufficient (consensus-agreed) quality level was made (number of edits, article edits, AfD !votes etc) so that those oppose arguments that were given would pick up on the most serious grounds so long as an experienced applicant was involved. That apparently, though, was rejected, though I don't know how much by. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

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.

This page was last edited on 16 July 2018, at 04:06 (UTC).
Reference: under CC BY-SA license.

Related Topics

Recently Viewed