Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Triona 3

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Triona

Final (0/6/0); ended 19:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC) - Triona (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Withdrawn by candidate[reply]

Nomination

Triona (talk · contribs) – Requesting adminship for a period of 30 days from the conclusion of this RFA Triona (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The intent is to have adminship for a period of 30 days, after which it is to be removed by a steward, with the requirement to reapply in the future. I realize this is an unconventional request - I'm hoping to set a precedent for limited terms of adminship to go alongside tenured adminship.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Closing of uncontroversial delete AFDs, and responding to WP:ARV

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I've done a fair amount of cleanup work, and RC patrol. I know how to recognize vandalism, and am experienced in using tools to combat it. I also try to add references to articles where possible, and to remove material which can't be supported by a reference.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I've had disagreements with other editors, but nothing that can be considered serious. WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL go a very long way in making sure that a disagreement doesn't turn into a conflict. Where mistakes have been made on my part, I do my best to correct them.

General comments

• Links for Triona: Triona (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Triona can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review her contributions before commenting.

Discussion

• Personally it would be my opinion that the idea of "temporary" adminship needs proper discussion before we start handing it out (I'm aware that it has previously been done, however, my impression was that that candidate was trusted by most the supporters as being able to handle the full-term). RfA is effectively "for life", if this RfA were to pass, it would be unenforceable to have the bit removed after 30 days. Furthermore, if you can't be trusted with the bit indefinitely, then why should you be trusted with it for an arbitrary length of time? Respectfully, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• PS: related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Requesting the bit temporarily Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe this is enforceable in that there is sufficient documentation here that a steward can regard this as consensus to desysop after the alloted time period. However, if the opinion that this should be withdrawn continues to grow in the next few minutes, I will withdraw it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triona (talk • contribs) 19:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok. 4 people saying this is premature in just a few minutes. I get the point, it was a bold move, and it didn't work. I appreciate the input, and I respectfully withdraw. Triona (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Oppose

1. Sorry without discussion on temporay adminship, i have to oppose. Secret ^account 19:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Secret, and temporary adminship for such a short length of time is a bad idea. (Also, why someone would want to go through the torture that is modern RFA for only 30 days of adminship is beyond me). --Rschen7754 19:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Nope. Moral support for trying to achieve something, but this isn't the way to do it. I might support a temporary admin appointment, but only for a sensible reason (eg bringing expertise to a specific backlog) for a sensible period of time, but just an arbitrary "30 days, for no special reason other than to have a go" just isn't going to fly, I don't think. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose Pledge is completely unenforceable, and because the candidate has such a visible interest in Wikiprocess, I can easily imagine the candidate later abandoning the pledge just to see what will happen. This isn't an AGF issue, it's just a question of whether I can trust the user with the tools issue, and I'm not sure I can. Townlake (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose. Sorry Triona, I would probably not oppose a normal request if you made it but this is almost WP:POINTy. An RFA, with its limited community participation, is not the correct way to establish any kind of temporary adminship. That's what WP:RFC is for. I do not doubt that you act in good faith but you have mixed up the correct way to handle such a proposal: First discussion, then implementation. Not the other way round. Regards SoWhy 19:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. (edit conflict)Oppose Without a discussion and agreement on temporary adminship, I can't support. There would be no way to enforce this (in theory, a steward could say "Oh, the consensus was to remove it after 30 days *click*" but there is no way to ensure this happens. What if they contact you and you say "No, everyone else gets it for life, I have changed my mind"? It is too uncertain as to what would/could/should happen. This just seems like a WP:POINTy RfA. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.