Category talk:Eguor admins

Rename

Per this UCFD, does anyone object to me redirecting this to Category:Eguor editors? David Mestel^(Talk) 16:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, though you might wish to nominate Category:Eguor admins for merging to Category:Eguor Wikipedians (looks like it was renamed), instead. - jc37 16:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead. Take it out of its misery. I can't imagine anyone would object to this page being simply a redirect. --Jophus00 (talk) 06:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete

Why is this page still here? Someone take the time to place a deletion template -- I'm not in the mood tonight. --Jophus00 (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Purpose

What is the exact purpose and usefulness of this category? At least two claims of usefulness were made in the recent CFD (closed as "no consensus"), but neither claim was accompanied with a clear explanation. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that AGK's comments as to this category's usefulness were quite clear. Additionally, I would state that admins who categorise themselves as "eguor admins" are actively expressing a desire to help or give a fair hearing to editors - at least if they have read and agree with Wikipedia:Eguor admins. Having a dynamic listing which admins can easily update by adding or removing categories from their user page is, in my opinion, rather ideal (or, at least, as ideal as we are going to get when constrained by the MediaWiki software). Also, as I'm sure you know, very few people watchlist their user page categories, so they may not realise that this discussion is ongoing. :\ --Iamunknown 20:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could clarify AGK's comment for me. How does the category function as a resource for editors? It may be that my failure to I also was unable to understand the claim that the category is "a resource for confused editors to contact an administrator who has declared themselves to have an active interest in editors who are in exactly the position they themselves are—confused". Why are the admins confused? Or, to be more specific, about what are they confused?

Also, the perception that "eguor admins" are "actively expressing a desire to help or give a fair hearing to editors" doesn't sit well with me. That statement is supposed to characterise all admins, not just the ones in this category; moreover, the possible implication that those who are not in this category are not willing to help editors is most definitely inaccurate.

Could the category perhaps be renamed to a title that more clearly expresses its purpose? At present, the category title is essentially the equivalent of "not rouge". – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I cannot speak for administrators themselves, but I could easily list many reason why I, in particular, would qualify myself as "confused" about Wikipedia as a project and why I would want to extend help to others in similar (possibly more egregious) circumstances.

Additionally, while that statement should characterise all administrators, it in reality does not characterise all administrators. And while there is a possible implication, there really is no implication at all. Logically, saying, "X is Y" (for sake of argument, define "X" as "Eguor admins" and "Y" as "willing to help editors") does not imply "not X is not Y". Perhaps the category name or description (which is completely lacking at the moment) can be made to clarify that.

I personally don't think the category need be renamed - though, again, I am sympathetic to adding a description. --Iamunknown 22:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying, then, that the usefulness of this category is as a grouping of administrators who are actively willing to help editors confused about Wikipedia? Or, otherwise stated, what is the one characteristic that defines all of the admins in this category? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not entirely comfortable answering your question. I would say, however, that the characteristic defining the administrators in this category is that they agree with the principles described at and characterise themselves as Wikipedia:Eguor admins. --Iamunknown 22:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, fair enough... Jc37 has linked to this discussion from the UCFD page, so perhaps others will be able to offer their perspective as well. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)