User:Ironiridis/RfA Discussion

I'm not going to get into a lengthy discussion on this, but policy has fallen behind practice in this case, I believe. I was nominated for adminship before the 30 day mark and it became a small issue during my RfA -- ultimately the 30 days passed while during the RfA, so I was created an Admin anyway. I don't vote because Voting is Evil, but were I to vote, I'd be most concerned about the user's edit count -- more than half of the user's edits are outside the main namespace. Edit counts are not the be-all-end-all of measuring sticks in RfAs (and I would oppose any initiative to include edit counts in Admin criteria), but I think they're useful, especially in a user this new. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 05:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of continued discussion, I'd like to point out that I don't have anything that supports my adminship other than my attitude and my work so far. My editcount is irrelevant in either direction. Many of my edits are my corrections of my own mistakes. I'm sure I've easily racked up over 100 edits on Talk and User talk pages. I ask people to determine my eligibility on their experience with me and the work they've observed me doing, as any other criteria simply doesn't apply. irid:t 05:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Er, whoops. "Simply doesn't apply" doesn't mean "don't oppose me because I'm new". What I meant was don't support me if you're uncomfortable with that fact, but if you're not uncomfortable, don't let it stop you. I guess, what I mean is, I don't feel the policy is designed to keep people willing to work hard away; it's designed to keep people who are volatile and inexperienced away from the big "block" and "delete" buttons. irid:t 06:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)