Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User wikipedia/Administrator someday

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  keep. No consensus to delete this. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Template:User wikipedia/Administrator someday

 * – (View MfD)

This template is a bit of a standing joke, and possibly a dangerous one for those who won't be familiar with the background. I can't remember the last time somebody had this userbox on their page and passed RfA; indeed, several people have said that suitable admin candidates will NOT have this template on their user page. I think we should just get rid of this to stop leading misguided newbies into assuming that they can somehow use this box and actually get the tools.

I originally set up a TfD for this three years ago, inspired by this comment, but it was speedily closed as "wrong venue" and forgot about it, so maybe now is a good time to re-open the discussion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , out of curiosity, will you be including the half-dozen clones of this template listed at §See also in this nomination as well? Primefac (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think those are appropriate to delete, as they are individual user templates that do not have the reputation of this one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a popular userbox, and that isn't a reason to delete it. It doesn't offend anyone. I don't think anyone is hoping to "use" the box to get the tools, they are just saying they want to RfA in the future. Natureium (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep – wanting to become an administrator on Wikipedia is a lofty goal. We are perpetually in need of new administrators, and it's counterproductive for us to prevent people from expressing interest, and even more counterproductive to stigmatize them for doing so. – bradv  🍁  15:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's kind of my point. We do stigmatise people because of this template and it does diminish the chances someone will be asked to become an admin - although exactly by how much is up for debate. I'm not going to mention names of people who strongly endorse this view because that would be canvassing, but hopefully they will spot the debate and back this view up. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think we, as a collective, stimatize people for expressing interest in being an administrator someday, or for using this template. If certain people are stigmatizing them, that should probably stop. Either way, that's certainly not going to be solved by deleting this. – bradv  🍁  15:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - I don't understand why a user saying they would like to be an administrator someday is in and of itself a disqualifying argument, and otherwise don't see how deleting this popular userbox (1,258 transclusions) solves any kind of problem. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Ritchie333 is absolutely right that this user box is basically a black mark against any potential admin. At the very least, the documentation should be updated to warn users of that fact. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 15:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I feel it may be helpful to give some practical examples of where this template is used. I randomly picked an account, User:Bassistphysicist whose user page says "I'm fourteen, I am in middle school, soon to be in high school, and I hate the simplicity of public school. I really like learning, that's why I made a Wikipedia account." and their last edit was over 14 years ago. The second example is User:Mrholybrain, who asserts to being a teenager and who last edited 12 years ago. Then there's User:Streetsabre who was looking to be a photographer for Wikipedia (Commons?) as of 31 December 2009 and who last edited 7 years ago. Ritchie333 (talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And what does this prove, exactly? Because I also found a few editors who would have a real chance some day, if not already now., , , , to name a few. – bradv  🍁  16:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep I realize that more than a few people have referenced this exact template as a negative in their RFA criteria. Seriously, though, what's the harm in it? For users that are clearly a long way off, like Ritchie's examples above, it's an opportunity to provide some friendly advice and encouragement about what being an administrator really means and what it takes to get there. For users that are a lot closer to being qualified, I think this is a better alternative for expressing interest than posting at WP:ORCP, for example, which has seen many discussions about how it hurts qualified candidates more than it helps.Have there ever been any serious RfA candidates who have run while this userbox was on their profile? I'd think any candidates with a chance of passing would be smart enough to have removed it well before transcluding. What about any RfA fails because the candidate once had it on their userpage as a newbie? I'd hope any oppose of an otherwise qualified candidate for solely this reason would at least attract a lot of discussion and hopefully some offsetting supports. Ultimately, though, we're doing the project a disservice by discouraging users from showing the least bit of ambition. We need all the help we can get, and there should be nothing wrong with raising your hand to say you're interested in taking on additional responsibility someday. At some point, shouldn't we stop fooling ourselves that we're only interested in administrators who don't want the job?  C Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3   (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - Currently, Advice for RfA candidates, which is listed as suggested reading at the RFA poll, contains the lines young or new users who have an I want to be an admin userbox may wait a very long time before they are proposed, at least until they have met the basic criteria demanded by the regular !voters. Nevertheless, the user category the box added your name to is regularly reviewed by experienced editors and admins who are actively looking for suitable candidates to nominate. If they believe you to be a potential candidate, they will contact you – probably by email, so be sure to have Wikipedia email enabled. I personally no opinion on that matter, but based on the discussion above, that prominently linked advice page seems to be giving out some bad advice.  Personally, after reading that page, I have a few doubts about the wisdom of some of that advice, as I do decent compared to a lot of those points, and an RFA of mine would get somewhere in the 5-10% support range. Hog Farm Bacon 03:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep RFA sure has a lot of weird unwritten rules. I don't like that the culture of Wikipedia makes it so having this userbox puts your future RFA in jeopardy, but it is what it is. The sentiment behind that is probably part of the reason lots of editors don't wish to run the RFA gauntlet.--WaltCip- (talk)  12:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Detrimental to those who use it in the current climate. Maybe recreate in 5-10+ years, but currently only serves as a cruel newbie trap. Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 01:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete In practice this has the opposite effect to what was intended, so it is worse than useless. P-K3 (talk) 01:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Consider archiving, deprecating, adding documentations or warnings, but there is no justification suppressing the history of this template, or breaking past uses in old versions of userpages. This is, and has been, a very popular userbox (or is a copy of one), and I don’t see any good reason why it should be deleted.  Even if a bad idea, bad ideas are not deleted but archived. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bradv. Firestar464 (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per Moneytrees. Firestar464 (talk) 04:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. I vote for admin based on merits and how they answer questions.... which is how the process should work. People who oppose an WP:RFA based on this template alone should have their opinions tossed aside. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep and deprecate as well as perhaps mark as historical per SmokeyJoe. RfA is hazardous in many ways, and something that may add another hurdle because of nonsensical community taboo is perhaps unwise to keep around for the unsuspecting and innocent to be burned by; however, the history is worth preserving. The heart of the nominator is certainly in the right place in this case. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 02:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Deprecate I agree with others that it should not be deleted, but I agree with the nominator that we can do a better job making clear to newbies that this is essentially a trap. Like others, I wish that weren't the case, but it is and we should make that clear before unsuspecting candidates add the UBX. Deprecation, marking historical, or marking as humorous would all accomplish that while still keeping history. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.