Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions

message: 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)
thread_title: Regarding a low amount of talk edits

message: 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)
replies: text: That's so uncommon that I don't think it's necessary, really. -Amarkov moo! 01:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[CAT:AOR]] 

message: This is needs to be covered in this essay...—Gaff ταλκ 04:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I wonder if the individuals who wrote the aforementioned comments might still feel the same way 16 years later. 😌 Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "I'm not voting for user X even though they are the greatest user ever, because they are self-nominated." 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Getting the most out of a request for adminship]]

message: Is it worth having a section to say "you must have X featured articles"? Stifle (talk) 09:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be a section about this already, could you clarify what you meant? ++Lar: t/c 11:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured articles 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Move to Meta 

message: Its hard for me to understand how it can be ok to to state:
:Example: Oppose – even though they are in their thirties, the contributor keeps playing immature jokes, removing text from articles,  and redirecting them inappropriately. StraightFace 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is a fair point.  The intention of the section is to show that it is the merits of the user's contributions to Wikipedia that matter, and that while editors may choose to point out facts about the user, these do not contribute to the case for or against the request.  I think that the Wisconsin example below probably makes the point more clearly - can you think of another example which could be used? Warofdreams talk 10:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that one point of that example is to remind us that maturity and age are only loosely correlated. Don't expect everyone over a certain age to behave maturely any more than you'd expect all younger editors to behave immaturely. ϢereSpielChequers 10:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: User is X

message: I would like to propose a change to this essay to include comments referring to an editors age. I have seen a number of editors oppose RfA's because they feel the user is too young and even too old. The base of the comments may have some legitimacy but overall its not a concise reason pertaining to their work. Examples would be helpful in clarifying this.
has some merits but overall not a good reason. Instead editors should comment on immaturity displayed in their work or interactions, lack of ability to be civilized in contentious situations, or inexperience with Wikipedia policy and its fundamental and subjective understand. The merit for too old is completely off base.
Unhelpful comments
:Example: Oppose – user is too young to be an admin. DoesntLikeYoungPeople 01:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Example: Support – this user is old enough. AdultsAlwaysMature 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

text: Example: Oppose – user has shown a lack of maturity when interacting with fellow editors, such as , , and . WorkReflectsTheAdmin 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

text: Example: Support – user shown a level of professionalism in contentious situations and has shown a fundamental and subjective understand to Wikipedia policies when implementing them. WorkReflectsTheAdmin 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
thread_title: Span & Age

message: I have another category in mind, and wanted to know if anyone else has encountered it:  an inappropriate expectation of perfection from the very first edit.  It's on my mind mostly because of a discouraged newbie.  I'm thinking about a section like this:
==User made a mistake==
Every editor was once a new editor who was struggling to figure out Wikipedia, and every editor made mistakes during that process.  Many good editors and valuable admins have made significant errors or even been blocked at one time or another.  Editors should generally place more emphasis on recent behavior and on the editor's response to his/her errors than on whether any error can possibly be found.  Avoid undue emphasis on minor problems or errors made a very long time ago.  
Unhelpful comments
:Example: Oppose – This user made a mistake six years ago, and only people who have been continuously perfect since their first edit should be admins. Unforgiving 01:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Example: Oppose – Someone complained about the editor at ANI, and if she were a good editor, then no one would ever have complained. GuiltyUntilProvenInnocent 01:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Example: Support – This user always adds an edit summary and has never misspelled anything. Perfectionist 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

text: Example: Oppose – This user's work demonstrates ongoing confusion about fundamental policies, as can be seen here:  WorkReflectsTheAdmin 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

text: Example: Support – This user is mature enough to own up to and resolve his mistakes without creating drama. WorkReflectsTheAdmin 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
thread_title:  User wasn't always perfect 

message: I think we should work in the direction of this as a guideline or policy, and encourage bureaucrats to consult it when reviewing RFA, as it does seem to have at least some consensus as to which arguments are harmful to the RFA process. It needs some work to get it there, but it's a good baseline to start from. Triona (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upgrade to a guideline 

message: How is 
:Example: Oppose – user has no experience of any deletion-related processes, so I cannot judge whether they can be trusted in this field. JudgeByExperience 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this a helpful comment? 

message: I see both positive and negative examples in the RfAs I've looked at. It sounds, from the other comments here that this guide could be updated. But even, as is, it gives me much to keep in mind for future RfAs. Liz Read! Talk! 20:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: New and/or young users appearing  in  the voting  sections at RfA would be very  much helped if they  were pointed to  this essay and Wikipedia:Advice for RfA voters. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great article 

message: "See now nice they are and what good they do at [the only thing the candidate has any experience at]; shouldn't they be given a chance?"  It the exact AAAD analogue of AADD's WP:MERCY.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really obvious missing entry: [[WP:MERCY]] as applied to AAAD 

message: Created in  2007, stats for  this essay are only  available from 2015. In  the period from  7/1/2015 to  3/31/2019 there have been 17,537 pageviews. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traffic