Revision as of 04:09, 10 October 2021 edit Chetsford (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Administrators 37,657 edits →‎Idea: Trifurcate discussion, Q&A, (!)voting: clarifiy ← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:18, 10 October 2021 edit undo Chetsford (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Administrators 37,657 edits →‎Idea: Administrator probationary period: edit for clarity Next edit →
Line 144: ::Makes sense to me and would lower stakes mentioned somewhat. —[[User:TheSandDoctor (mobile)\|TheSandDoctor (mobile)]] ([[User talk:TheSandDoctor (mobile)\|talk]]) 02:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC) ::The problem, of course, is that it's easy to game: just do uncontroversial things for 180 days (deleting obvious spam, blocking obvious vandals, etc.) and then move on to controversial things (arbitration enforcement, ANI, difficult deletions, etc.) once the [[sword of Damocles]] has been lifted. It's an interesting idea, but that question would need an answer. [[User:Extraordinary Writ\|Extraordinary Writ]] ([[User talk:Extraordinary Writ\|talk]]) 02:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC) :::That's an excellent point. I would respond by clarifying that the issue this is addressing is one of perception (''depressurize'' ''"a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere"'') versus one of practice (''stop bad actors from becoming admins''). The idea is merely intended to decrease the pressure of the atmosphere by creating an emergency exit to soothe the nerves of !voters fixated on the infinite unknown. It is not intended to actually ferret-out determined bad actors, and has novery little utility in doing so for the reason you correctly identify. It's like the Queen's reserve powers; they never actually get used but it makes <ins>some</ins> people feel good that they're there. [[User:Chetsford\|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford\|talk]]) 04:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC); edited 04:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC) ==Idea: Temporary adminship==

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2021 review/Brainstorming: Difference between revisions