Wikipedia:But I'm an administrator!: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:09, 6 May 2017

Revision as of 01:28, 24 August 2017

Line 3:

{{nutshell|This page is an essay encouraging editors to not necessarily give greater weight in discussions just because one user is a Wikipedia Administrator or otherwise may have more "seniority" than another.}}

Sometimes in [[WP:AFD|articles for deletion]] (AfD) discussions, one editor's argument may be given more weight over another simply because one has more edits on Wikipedia or one may even be a Wikipedia Administrator. Don't fall for it.

At the time this essay was created, the original author [[User:Paulmcdonald]] submitted this:

Line 10:

''I have over 35,000 edits recorded on Wikipedia. According to [[Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits]], I am ranked 1,927 in terms of most edits among all registered Wikipedians. I'm not "number 1" but I've done a lot. And I'm wrong a lot.--[[User:Paulmcdonald|Paul McDonald]] ([[User talk:Paulmcdonald|talk]]) 02:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)''

</blockquote>

Each argument should stand on its own accord and on its own merits in Wikipedia discussions. That means the newest editor, with the least edits, may have the best idea or the most relevant point of view.

Don't let anything like "seniority", edit counts, or Wikipedia status of an editor sway your opinion. If the "experienced" editor has information why they hold a certain position in a discussion, they should be able to convey that experience and argument in a way that other editors can make their own judgement based on that experience.

In other words, provide details for the experience and explain your argument, don't just respond with "Because I'm an Admin, so there."