Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/DatGuy

The desperation
in the subtext of Nick's reply to the first oppose is something I share. I felt for some time that the Foundation should appoint about ten temporary sysops a week until where are about three thousand sysops. The temps would serve one year and could then stand for RfA or not after the year. Methodology to be determined by the Foundation. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The easier thing would just to allow users to run on a platform of temporary adminship. There is a plan in the works, it's just taking a while to get off the ground. Primefac (talk) 08:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd like that if it would provide enough admins. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to join the discussion. Primefac (talk) 08:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Wow, I think the WMF is already too involved in our day to day lives. Them appointing temporary sysops might be just enough to push me over the edge to quit.  We don't need 3000.  We have about 300 active, tripling that would be more than enough anwyway.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I know how you feel. Probably many feel the same way. I'm desperate.. Among other feelings. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Meh, we are doing ok with the number of admin we have anyway, although more would be better. Most boards aren't backlogged most of the time, so it's getting done.  It's one reason I've been trying to find the time to do more here, but it isn't at an emergency state yet.  The community has stepped up to do a lot of this, with admin only needing to come in at the end to use the bit after a decision has been made. That is probably a good thing.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There also seems to, at XfDs, have been an increase in WP:NACs, leaving it so the admins don't even need to close all discussions (although NACs and their prevalence seem to be contentious) TartarTorte 13:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I Know waht you mean. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * May I suggest the unbundling of certain tools to allow non-admin, trustworthy experienced editors to perform such tasks as PP, Closing AfDs, RfCs, CSDs, Prods and other tasks that involve content which could be assigned to trusted NPP reviewers, VRT agents, FA reviewers/promoters, some of our best closers, etc. I can only imagine how confusing it must be for admins to ignore content in a behavioral dispute, and then turn around and decide if content is an actionable CSD, or determine the outcome of an AfD without a substantial amount of article reviewing/creation/promotion experience. Doing so would allow our admins to focus on behavior, vandalism, disputes, AE, AN, ANI, and the like.  Just a thought.  Atsme  💬 📧 14:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't unbundling of these tools make it harder to become an admin by making the roles prerequisites? 0x Deadbeef 15:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Deleting content is one of the most contentious things an admin does. Having access to deleted material is something the lawyers at the Foundation say must be granted only by an RFA.  Unbundling is a perennial topic, and for the most part, fails to get consensus. Honestly, XFD isn't typically that large a load, and NACs usually get it right. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 14:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)