Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User wikipedia/Administrator someday (2nd nomination)

 __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. (non-admin closure) JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 01:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:User wikipedia/Administrator someday

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

It's a trap for newbies, as per WP:HATC. Adminship is not a trophy to aspire for. Firestar464 (talk) 10:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, as this template is pretty much a trap. As an aside, I think I recall saying he did a review of people with this template when RfA-hunting, so he might have some thoughts on the nomination's merits. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just for the record this template has been nominated 3 times in the past:
 * Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 14
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2017 October 18
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User wikipedia/Administrator someday
 * - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - as nothing in the nominator's rationale is different from the discussion in 2020. Can someone point me towards any evidence that having this template implies the editor is just looking to gain Adminship for a "trophy"? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a bit of a misrepresentation to describe the last discussion as a clean/uncontroversial keep, particularly considering that towards the end there was discussion forming about deprecating it. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah but deprecation doesn't involve MfD, a discussion could have been opened at any time regarding the suggestion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, not harmful enough to warrant deletion. —  csc -1 01:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is a problematic one. It does on occasion have value -- I've seen Barkeep and others discuss it in more optimistic terms -- but it's been a meme for years for good reason. Considering that keep arguments in prior discussions have included "this userbox lets us screen out the people who should never be admins", it seems...perhaps a little cruel to have, honestly. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not a trap. Looking at the transcluders is to look at bias.  This template attracts Adminship nominators, and the good ones become admins, and the others don’t, and some don’t realise and leave it one their userpage forever. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Curious: exactly how many editors, in the past 5 years, passed RfA and had this template on their user page beforehand? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That will be difficult, but you could sleuth it out. It is hard because templates' Special:WhatLinksHere don't record past transclusions or substitutions.  You might have to examine RfA candidates userboxes before and after their RfA.  Some might remove the template on the starting of discussion with a nominator, or on an agreement to nominate, or on the drafting of their RfA, or the launching of their RfA, or on their promotion, or a random time after their promotion.  You might try WikiBlame on every admin's userpage, searching for the userbox text.  A yet another complication is that many admins, on becoming admins, delete their userpage, understandably clearing their old personal data posted long ago, and so even WikiBlame will be unreliable.  Also, their are a bunch of similar templates, and I really don't think one should be deleted before the others.  These templates generally categorize, so it is very easy to find editors thinking about adminship, and in places like WT:RfA, you can find lots of evidence of admins looking for potential new admin candidates, and I am completely sure that these categories are browsed.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete It is a bit of a trap for new users, and it really should be deleted as long as it is used as a negative example of unwanted hat collecting at RFAs. ( Also, delete the similar ones as well. ) Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you offer any evidence for this? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Wanting to be an admin (at least for the right reasons) shouldn’t be criminalised. SK2242 (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Nothing has meaningfully changed since the past MfD. And, as a user who has this userbox on my userpage, I do not wish to become an administrator for the sake of collecting a trophy, but instead because my editing routine involves frequent requests for administrative action, and that those requests sometimes are not handled in a timely fashion. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep but warn in the template documentation that using this template may be looked upon negatively. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 05:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It also may be looked upon positively. I am quite sure that back in 2006-7, it was NOT a negative to aspire to being an admin, and back then everyone who aspired and was competent succeeded at RfA.  If there is a problem, the problem is with the current cultural attitude to adminship, not with these old templates.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * While I agree that an aspiration towards adminship isn't inherently a bad thing, a significant portion of the users using this template have, in my experience, been more on the level of "narrowly avoiding a CIR block" than "about to be an admin", since well, most people who aspire to be admins and have the competency to pass an RfA know that this template is going to generate opposes. Should the culture be different? Yeah, but we work with what we have. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 06:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And I'm telling you that in the years since 2006, this template (and others like it) had a lot of uses on userpages of people who later passed RfA, and deleted the evidence, and that if you only look at the residual uses by users that RfA nominators pass over, you are looking at a biased selection. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. All I can say here is the perception that I've heard from other editors of the template, as well as my very-much anecdotal evidence. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 08:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is causing any harm ? No. Will potential RFAs be slam dunk opposed based on showing this userbox ? No. Stupid MFD is stupid. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. This was discussed 5 months ago and I don't see how anything has changed since then. This doesn't run afoul of any userbox policies so if people want to stick it on their user pages let them. It may be that this userbox is used a lot by newcomers closer to a CIR block than adminship but there are a lot of people that I think would make great administrators that have this on their userpage. Anyone opposing a candidate purely on the basis of them having this userbox is doing the RfA process a disservice in my view. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per SK#2 and SNOW (very loosely in regard to both). Suggest a year moratorium on discussing this here again. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 02:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per above and WP:SNOW. -Cupper52Discuss! 21:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.