Wikipedia:But I'm an administrator!: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
ce |
ce |
||
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. An anonymous IP editor who just joined the project last week may have the best idea.
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."▼
▲Don't let anything like "seniority", edit counts, or Wikipedia status of an editor (awards, Barnstars, years of experience) 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, and on the merits of that .
▲In other words, provide details for the experience and explain your argument, don't just respond with "Because I'm an Admin/top editor, so there."
{{Wikipedia essays}}
| |||