Wikipedia talk:Hat collecting

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

If you are applying for autopatrol, point to the articles you created

The sentence "If you are applying for autopatrol, point to the articles you created" is misleading. As it is clearly stated in Wikipedia:What_user_rights_are_not#Autoreviewer, there is no reason to apply for autopatrol. In fact the sentence should be rewritten to "If you are applying for autopatrol, you ARE a hat collector (or you don't understand what is an autopatrolled user)" or something similar.--Pere prlpz (talk) 14:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pere prlpz: No--autopatrol is to make it easier on reviewers. If you are a really prolific article creator, you may do it for them. It's not for you, no, but that doesn't mean there aren't some reasons you should apply. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 19:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think it is perfectly reasonable to apply to be designated as autopatrolled, if you meet the requirements. It makes the workload easier on the NPPers, which is a good thing. It may be a sign of hat collecting, but so could any request for user rights. The accusation of hat collecting shouldn't be a reason to not apply for user rights, in the same way that we shouldn't conclude that someone wanting to be a cop is obviously on an abusive power trip, even if some cops are on an abusive power trip. Hat collecting is a problem when the user rights aren't beneficial: someone legitimately applying for autopatrolled in good faith is helping the community. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probationary adminship

Sometimes I think it might be better to just give people a probationary adminship of, say, one year. At the end of the year, they can then apply for a permanent adminship, and point to the uses they've made of your tools. If they haven't used their tools, then they probably wouldn't bother applying, because people would see that the person obviously doesn't need them. St. claires fire (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@St. claires fire: probational adminship has been proposed and rejected numerous times, see many of the discussions here. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the policy proposal process on Wikipedia is also broken and in need of reform. St. claires fire (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can always start a new discussion, Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) may be a good place for you to start if you would like. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most change of that sort has to instituted from the top. That's how the ArbCom got created, for instance. I doubt the community would've created it through the proposal process. St. claires fire (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absurdity

We really have "understands policies" as one of the "signs" to watch out for that someone's suspect? This is a joke, right? jp×g 🗯️ 07:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]