User talk:Steel1943/RfA criteria

Hat collecting

I worry that a candidate who has collected so many userrights might be accused of hat collecting, and just possibly it might be justified. There is also a risk that this approach would encourage a return to admin coaching days, when candidates would do little bits of activity in various aspects of Wikipedia in order to make themselves more suitable as candidates. Most people consider it an improvement when that died and we went back to appointing clueful editors who had at least one are on wiki where they had a need for the tools. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@WereSpielChequers: Yeah, it's 50/50 on the whole "hat collecting" concern, so I have a bit of a way of counteracting that concern. My thought process is that user access levels can only, in most cases, be granted by administrators. Administrators are given their administrator "user access level" through RfAs. And RfAs only pass, in theory, via community consensus; to me, what this boils down to is that if an editor has a user access level, it was the trickle-down effect of previous RfAs, and one could loosely state that, in effect, the editor received their user access level as a result of community consensus in someone else's RfA. So, in a nutshell, if an administrator can make the judgement call to give an editor the user access levels, it's like the community agreed to the editor having the user access level. Steel1943 (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]