Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Dreamy Jazz

I'm not sure there are enough questions
Good god. Not that any one question or questioner is itself problematic, but bludgeoning much? The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 04:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand your concern? SportingFlyer  T · C  05:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 22 questions in less than 36 hours seems excessive to me. None are bad by themselves, but added together it's like asking someone to take a sip of water from a firehose. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 06:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * To be honest, now that I understand your concern, I really do not see the problem here. 22 questions is more than the past few RfAs have had to answer, yes, but the candidate isn't particularly visible, none of the questions are all that difficult, and calling bludgeoning into question is completely off the mark. It is not as if one user is trying to disrupt the RfA, we're all curious about how this candidate will perform as an admin. SportingFlyer  T · C  07:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I know we seldom remove questions, but aren't 25 and 26 just trolling? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely. Either a banned user or someone editing logged out, no doubt. P-K3 (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input, I've removed them. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Self-exclusion system
Re debate over self-requested blocks: Perhaps Wikipedia should adopt a "self-exclusion" system where you could obstruct yourself from editing for a set lenght of time. Many gambling sites have it. Something for WMF devs then. --Pudeo (talk) 11:16, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If you go to https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/task/edit/form/1/ and create a task for "allow users block themselves", I can try to take it from there DannyS712 (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That already exists. It's a script. Can't for the life of me remember what it is, but I know folks like SF00 and others have used it in the past. Primefac (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikibreak enforcer, but it doesn't actually work (i.e. I figured out how to get around it the first time I tried to enforce a wikibreak :{ ) DannyS712 (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I've done so and added you as a subscriber, do you need me to do more? --valereee (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ETA: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T239537 --valereee (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Didn't realize you didn't want it in the block log... not as easy DannyS712 (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , literally the only reason to not have it in the block log would be so people looking for a reason to oppose can't use it against the person. Which to judge by this RfA, they would. I think it's sad that right now there are hundreds of editors out there thinking, "Okay, rule #359 for remaining viable for a future possible RfA: do not ask for a self-block." --valereee (talk) 12:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You know, I think if anyone could block themselves at any time, it might actually remove the stigma of a self-block. Keeping it off the block log isn't necessary. It just needs to be something you don't have to ask an admin for. --valereee (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)