Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellany for deletion This page was nominated for deletion on November 28, 2007. The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn.

Contents

[edit] Regarding a low amount of talk edits

Regarding a low amount of talk edits - the possibilities mentioned are reasonable, although if that is the case I would comment the candidate should mention this. Automatically opposing every candidate with less than 100 edits talk page edits isn't very bright, however, in my opinion, considering less than 100 talk edits to be a 'flag', prompting further inverstigation or questions is a sensible approach. Only my opinion. Addhoc 12:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CAT:AOR

This is another type of thing (parallel to inclusionism/deletionism) to possibly add as a thing not to argue about. but it may be contentious. (WP:ROUGE is yet another) ... ++Lar: t/c 16:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

That's so uncommon that I don't think it's necessary, really. -Amarkov moo! 01:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I've seen it come up (and been a bone of contention) at least a half dozen times, if not more, and I don't always watch that closely. So that may or may not be "uncommon" by your metric. ++Lar: t/c 12:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "I'm not voting for user X even though they are the greatest user ever, because they are self-nominated."

This is needs to be covered in this essay...—Gaff ταλκ 04:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Also, age as a criterion for oppose ("too young to be an admin" kind of arguments).- TwoOars 04:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You have to be careful with that, because sometimes "too young" really means "too immature", which is perfectly valid. -Amarkov moo! 04:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
"Too immature" is a perfectly valid criterion. But age? In a recent RfA, I saw arguments like "We'd better not have 14 year old admins". If they mean immaturity, they should say immaturity. Why equate youth with immaturity? A lot of kids are mature and a lot of adults are immature too. - TwoOars 04:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Because youth often (not always, but often) goes with immaturity. I know good admins who are in their teens, but they're the exception to the general rule. K. Scott Bailey 02:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Getting the most out of a request for adminship

I recently wrote Wikipedia:Getting the most out of a request for adminship to complement the information on in this essay. There seems to be a growing feeling that it should be merged into this essay. If any users here would like to comment on the new essay or has thought on the possibility of merging, please comment on that essay's talk page. Warofdreams talk 01:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have now merged the two essays. Various comments on the essay and in support of the merger can be found at Wikipedia talk:Getting the most out of a request for adminship. I'm looking forward to seeing continued work on polishing and developing this. Warofdreams talk 04:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured articles

Is it worth having a section to say "you must have X featured articles"? Stifle (talk) 09:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a section about this already, could you clarify what you meant? ++Lar: t/c 11:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move to Meta

I propose moving this to Meta, as we should take these things into account wherever admin nominations are considered. All of the Wikimedia projects have admins, so this is applicable to a broader group than just Wikipedia. Mr. Ambassador (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Different Wikimedia project have differing procedures for adminship; this document is only applicable to the English Wikipedia. Warofdreams talk 09:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)