Wikipedia talk:Automatic Adminship

kick off

I think this is a good idea - and although there some pretty obvious criticisms of the idea, in my opinion this would be a net benefit. Feel free to drop the objections in below, and I'll offer my rejoinders :-) Privatemusings (talk) 05:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside a gazillion other objections, this would creat the situation where it matters who gets the credit for a collaborative effort. Hesperian 05:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please try and find a rejoinder to the objection that giving people like Ottava, Malleus and Giano the tools and tasking them to enforce policies on civility is absurd. The skills required for featured articles are completely different to those required for the use of the admin tools. Ironholds (talk) 05:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not just no, but hell no, not in a million years could this possibly be considered a good idea. Application of this would make Giano, Nichalp (who just had all special permissions removed for engaging in paid editing and sockpuppetry), and User:Malleus Fatuorum admins. In what universe would that be a good idea? This is completely leaving aside that the skills required to develop featured articles are completely different from those required to comprehend and enforce policy. Furthermore, there is a WMF-level reason why this will never and can never be allowed, thank God. +Sysop comes with ViewDeleted as a userright. Mike Godwin has stated unequivocally that the ViewDeleted userright cannot be given out on enwiki without the approval of the community, apparently on an individual basis, as we currently do at RFA. Given that, I move that this be archived as yet another of Privatemusings' policy suggestions that are not only at odds with current policy, but are not terribly conversant with reality as it is practiced on Wikipedia. → ROUX ₪ 05:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely as Roux says, the skills required to uphold and maintain policy are completely different to those required for building content. An editor could be great at writing content, but have no idea about when a block is appropriate, how to deal with vandalism. Also they would not necessarily have the patience to deal with lengthy issues on the various administrative notice boards. All in all, just having featured articles to ones name is not proof that one is suitable as an administrator Spitfire^Tally-ho! 05:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If RFA is broken (I do not claim that it is, I merely concede it for the sake of this arguement) this is certainly throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Content writing and policy enforcement are have no reasonable overlap, and this proposal will do nothing to ensure that fair-minded, rational, civil, and qualified editors become admins. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, FA's are a collaborative effort - although an editor might be the primary editor of an article and that user or another one may nominate it, they are not owned by a user (my boasts on my own userpage aside, I see those as more for fun/bragging rights than any serious indication of status). Secondly, experience has proven that any process for which a political system and rules are created tends to lead to gaming of process, or even corruption of it. FAC is reasonably good at establishing quality of articles - I could see it ending up buried in ArbCom rubbish involving disputant editors if people aren't getting the FA's they feel they are entitled to to gain adminship. Orderinchaos 10:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion from the administrator's noticeboard

In due course, I'll copy the discussion which is currently active on the admin.s noticeboard here, so anyone interested can follow / join / read more :-) Privatemusings (talk) 07:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]