Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DoomsDay349

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

DoomsDay349

Final: (40/12/7); ended 02:35,

Nomination accepted. I just want to say thanks to biblio for the nomination and for the very nice introduction. DoomsDay349 02:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: As an administrator I would definitely become involved in newpage patrolling (which I already do now, by adding speedy tags) and recent changes patrolling (which I do less often but as an admin would be easier and permit me to do more often). I would also get involved in

WP:AIV

, to which I periodically report users (mostly those that I find during my patrolling).

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I am fond of the work I have done for Dragonlance, pulling it out of a load of stubs. I recognize that there is still a load of work to do and look eagerly to the future for the improvements I can make. I'm also fond of the good article reviewing; there's a big backlog, and there's something nice about seeing a whole subcategory of reviewees cleared out.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Well lemme think...yeah. Earliest I can recall was with an editor named Kranar Drogin, over the (written by me and proposed for deletion by me) Speaker of the Suns article. There was a whole load of crap over Esperanza, with me really getting upset over the whole ordeal. Chief among the incidents was my very rude treatment of Elaragirl, who I came to recognize as a wonderful person who (insofar as I understand it) has left Wikipedia. As it happens I am involved in a questioning of my edits to the various gods of the Dragonlance Campaign, and am hoping that I am dealing with it correctly. I'm being as civil as I can and am responding to his comments (however uncivil) to the best of my ability, and am using the best of my patience to wait this out rather than immediately revert his changes (which of course prompts the whole 3RR deals). I plan to take that attitude in the future.

Optional Questions from DarkFalls

4. What is your opinion on the

IAR

policy, and in what situation will you use it?

A: For one, the policy is very short and very vague. There are certainly certain policies that one can't ignore (

WP:CIVIL

, for instance). I wonder to what this policy wholly extends to; if you feel that by removing a CSD template from your article improves Wikipedia, then can you remove it? Certainly it's a rule not to do so, but since we can ignore the rules...Also I wonder as to what exactlyconstitutes improving or maintaining Wikipedia; surely that can very often be in the eye of the beholder? For me personally IAR is something I feel is quite vague and doubt that I would invoke it.

5. What do you think will make a good/bad admin?

A: Several things. Certainly knowledge and experience with the project, maturity, and dedication to Wikipedia. Patience and level headedness are also important. At the heart of the matter, though, I think loving the project and, out of care for it and its goals, always working to improve it.

Optional question from

Optional question from Ed (talk · contribs)

7. Your userpage states that you are 14, about to turn 15. This means that you are most likely a freshman or an 8th grader. How is this working out for you? As you are well aware, I myself am 14, and you know how much changes we experience in our lives at this time. (You know what I'm talking about...) Do you feel that you would be able to cope with yout administrative duties along with balancing a family, social, academic, and athletic life? How do you think Wikipedia life has affected you in real life? Furthermore, will gaining an administrative role here bring about added stress consume time in your daily life?

A:. I am currently an 8th grader with (thankfully) the odd week of school left. As far as balancing my "lives" I see no problems. Many of my hobbies are dealt with online (for instance, I play D&D exclusively online) which just supplements being online with Wikipedia. Academically I am (and no intent to brag) a good student and don't see a problem with neglecting one or the other for the other. I don't play any sports, so that helps. I feel everything is balanced and will continue to be balanced, and like I said, don't see any problems. DoomsDay349 21:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs)

8. I know that this question is rather irrelevant to the whole nom, and that it's queer for the nominator to push in questions, but I would like to know how the whole Esperanza debacle changed your views and opinions towards Wikipedia. Don't answer if you're unwilling, but I'm curious. bibliomaniac15 02:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: Very much so, actually. The whole Esperanza mess had one great point for me, and that was that it brought to my attention a whole bunch of policies about what Wikipedia is and is not. I came out of it with a lot of knowledge armed for the future. It showed me many policies and essays that had a significant impact between the first and second MFDs so that I totally changed positions. The MFD taught me a lot and helped shape the editor I am today. Thanks for bringing this up actually, it was a nice memoir :).

General comments

• See DoomsDay349's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for DoomsDay349: DoomsDay349 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/DoomsDay349 before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support as nominator. bibliomaniac15 04:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support hoping to beat the nom, but…—  $PЯINGrαgђ  06:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support Ha ha! Glad I got in early. I've know Dooms for a while and have no doubt that he'll do an excellent job with admin tools. Dfrg.msc 07:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support per nominator. If he's good enough for bibliomaniac to nominate, he's good enough for me to support. An admittedly superficial glance at the candidate's contribs didn't unearth any deal-breakers. —AldeBaer 08:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support I've senn DoomsDay349 around, I think he/she would use the tools in a great way... especially with all the bcklogs that are building up around here. Good luck! --
   Man 10:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. Support I see no major concerns. Those backlogs aren't getting any smaller, and we need admins. —Anas ^talk? 12:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support, Looks good to me. --Тλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 13:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support, as far as I've seen. Abeg92contribs 14:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support. I have seen good work from DoomsDay and I see little evidence of immaturity on-wiki (though I have myself warned about the "not giving a fuck" status not being a great message). I am not prepared to oppose based on an IRC discussion I was not present for, but I advise those who who use IRC to comport themselves as they would were they editing a Wikipedia page. WjBscribe 17:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support. I don't see any serious concerns; contrary to what Gaillimh says below, looking at the candidate's talkpage doesn't reveal any obvious signs of "immaturity". Good editcount and experience, and we really need more admins.
    ^Assistance! 18:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
11. Support User seems ready for adminship. Captain panda 18:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support Looks good. And I like the
    WP:FUCK essay. It's a pretty good message overall, albeit couched in less than ideal terms. Cheers, Lanky ^TAL_K 19:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    I like the essay too. But, let people look at things superficially, what can you do? Wikidan829 22:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

13. Support I have had many interactions with this user, and I think he is mature to wield the tools with care and aforethought. This is Dev920, btw, using her sockpuppet account. DevAlt 20:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support I have known DoomsDay since we met at Esperanza. He is a good editor that will always think about his actions, and he is always trying to keep good relations with his fellow editors. I must oppose those that say he is immature, because DD is definitely not an immature person, given that he is about to complete the 8th grade. His answer to my own question was satisfactory; he clearly demonstrated that he can manage his time. I am confident that this user will be a good admin.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 21:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support Being an administrator means that they will continue to contribute as needed, have a decent working knowledge of Wikipedia, and not abuse the tools. I believe DoomsDay349 fits into this category. Regardless of what is said below about "maturity", I took a good look at DoomsDay349's contributions, especially the discussion that seemed to be a personal attack, and think that he handled himself quite well - calmly reminding the other party of policy and being kind in every reply. As Jimbo said, "I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*...I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing." As far as the
    WP:FUCK thing on his page, I would encourage anyone who didn't already, to not be superficial, and actually read the essay. What it is meant by "not giving a fuck" is not as you may initially think. Wikidan829 22:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
16. Weak Support I acknowledge some of the concerns raised by the opposing users, but my personal experience with this user is quite positive and I personally see no major reasons for denying access to the admin tools.--Húsönd 00:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support Looks good to me. Could have cooled things a little more in the discussion highlighted by Majorly, but generally did well. I really think that the
    WP:FUCK issue has been blown a little out of proportion, and the fact that the user identifies with it encourages me, and shows a greater level of maturity IMHO. I would normally err on the side of oppose if there are maturity concerns, but I am happy to take the chance here. TigerShark 01:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
18. One 05:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support. That spat with User:Cynehelm probably could have been handled a bit better, but really it didn't seem to be going anywhere at all without intervention. The WP:FUCK essay bothers me not, although I would advise that message to stay off the candidate's talk page, and possibly that he remove the "DGAF" userbox from his user page as well - it still might be misleading to a new editor looking for help. Other than that, no problems. - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 18:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support. Though the WP:FUCK essay may be somewhat worrisome, I'd like invoke it by not giving a f*** about it. I have seen no problems with this user, and think DoomsDay is an excellent candidate for adminship. --tennisman ^{sign here!} 22:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support, satisfied with the answers to the new questions, and I believe the user can keep from having repeat performances of a snappy temper.
    Arkyan • ^(talk) 23:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
22. Support, main positive - building a 'pedia - outweighs negatives. If events continue then there is always RfC. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Oppose concerns not enough to oppose. Davewild 16:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support. Oppose votes are unimpressive and superficial. The candidate obviously recognizes and corrects errors, which is the most we can expect from anyone. He removed the link people had a problem with. I'm confident that he will ask questions when he has questions and exercise good judgment. --Spike Wilbury 19:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support someone with such an uplifting user name couldn't be bad --Infrangible 01:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support. per nom. Have seen around, have seen no problems. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 16:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support. As being one of the people that got into an arguement with DoomsDay way back when he first started, I fully support. He has matured greatly since I have first had dealings with him, and to this day has been a great contributor to the Wikipedia. He quickly corrects mistakes, does great peer reviews, and has worked on many GA reviews. This whole "Fuck" issues is something people grasp onto, and is not something that should even been considered. I have seen people allowed to become admins with less work that what DoomsDay has contributed.--Kranar drogin 02:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support Who hasn't put something stupid on their talk or user page before, especially early on? Good response by candidate -- everybody needs something pointed out here & there, and taking criticism well is a good sign. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 18:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support. A good editor who will be an asset as an admin. The opposes below that simply give the reasoning "oppose because he's 14" are hugely disappointing. Need I mention how many great admins we have who are that age or younger. Opposing for reasons of immaturity (and giving evidence to show this) is fair enough, but opposing merely based upon someone's age regardless of their work here is entirely unjustifiable. Will (aka Wimt) 18:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support Yey for young administrators! I think this candidate will make a great admin (despite my earlier slight concern) and we can always do with some younger admins. Yep, definitely. Signed, under-18 administrator Majorly (talk | meet) 19:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support per high edit count. BH (Talk) 19:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think supporting someone for their edit count is almost as bad as opposing them for their age!- TwoOars 19:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Can I please no one? BH (Talk) 19:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It isn't the best reason for sure, but it's better than a dumb oppose of the same type :) This should not be a big deal. Majorly (talk | meet) 19:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am sorry, no offense meant. Didn't mean to sound like I was jumping on you. :) Really. It was a semi-humorous statement indicating that you might be using the wrong reasons to judge candidates. It is just that I do not find your reasons for opposing or supporting candidates on RfAs that sensible. - TwoOars 19:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

32. Support No major concerns here. Also, when people start opposing based on the candidate's age, it probably confirms that there are no serious issues here :).- TwoOars 19:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support - Matthew trusts this user and Matthew believes that he will make a better administrator than half of our present sysops. Matthew also believes that this user is not a silly twat, has a brain and would not do harm to Wikipedia.
    Matthew 19:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
34. Support per being a great, trustworthy, and underage user. Cbrown1023 talk 19:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support who says age is a problem. I am a minor and am an administrator on other projects. Lcarsdata 21:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support, per Mr Stephen. · AndonicO ^Talk 21:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support - those agism concerns just make me want to support more. No problems, no big deal.
    ! _{Review me!} 23:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
38. Support because most opposers have insane arguments. --ST47Talk 23:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
39. Strong Support. As a fellow Dragonlance editor and contributor, I can attest to this user's maturity and abilities. Although he might have went a little too far on his talk page, it is obvious that he was in a bad mood at that time and thus is excusable as non of us are perfect. In addition, as a fellow 14 year old student in high school, I find this prejudice against his age quite foolish. If anything, his willingness to concentrate on his school subjects should be considered as a sign of maturity as he is prioritizing his tasks. Ddcc 00:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support I see no problems here. I am confident that he would be an excellent administtator. --
    Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

1. While extra buttons are no big deal, this candidate doesn't appear to possess the necessary maturity to use these buttons responsibly and effectively communicate with others gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 07:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Can you please lend me some diffs regarding your oppose, Gaillimh? --DarkFalls ^talk 08:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Sure thing, DarkFalls. One needs only to look towards the candidate's talk page, specifically his "current status" to see this sort of overt immaturity I'm referring to. I can't quite see when he added this, so apologies in advance for the lack of a "diff". In addition, it rather appears like he's a child who's all to pleased to be without parental supervision on Wikipedia. As such, giving DoomsDay any extra buttons seems to be a recipe for disaster. I'll note that I've no opinion on the essay he cites (other than the way he applies it on his talk page) or any prejudice against young Wikipedians (that'd be a bit hypocritical, hehe); my issue is simply with the candidate's maturity, or more aptly, the lack thereof. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 08:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   No problems about the lack of diffs... According to his user page, he's actually 15 years old. As to the immaturity, I do agree from the "status", that in the future, he might have a

   tendency to bite. The userpage is particularly eccentric for my taste, though I won't oppose on that basis. What I am frowning on about this user, is frequent gaps of absences, with some being seven days long.. --DarkFalls ^talk 09:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Couple responses here; firstly, thank you for your criticism (every bit helps ya know). Firstly to Gaillimh, my apologies for misunderstanding on my part but it's unclear to me what it is you're saying is wrong with the current status template. In honesty it's really just a joke, and never meant in any way to offend anyone. I can honestly say that

   WP:FUCK helped me out a lot in the post-Esperanza deal, as I was really stressed in that whole period. Also, I am almost 15 years old, I've got a little less than 2 months to go here. Is there anything besides the template that you feel portrays me as immature? I've no problem with you having an opinion of course but I want to know what I can do better to not appear immature to others. Secondly, to DarkFalls. I do know about the gaps of absence and I am busy with other things and sometimes that whole vibe to edit doesn't strike. I'm feeling way more into the swing of things now and don't foresee any such gaps in the future (I've got quite a bit of work to do :)). Also, the recent gap was meant to be two days but was extended without my prior knowledge; no internet access so I couldn't alert anyone. I didn't feel two days warranted a Wikibreak template but had I known about the extension I certainly would have. Again, thanks for all your criticism! DoomsDay349 22:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Hi there Doomsday! Thanks for removing the silliness from your talk page! Your response is a bit confusing, however, as it seems that since you removed the header, you obviously realise why it is inappropriate. If you simply removed it to appease me or anyone else during your RfA, I appreciate the sentiment, but please, it's not at all necessary. My issue is not with the essay itself (which is quite valid, although the message is largely obscured by the gratuitous use of language), but with the hostile environment you put forth on your talk page. Your Current status: not giving a fuck gives the impression that you don't care about Wikipedia or the community and are unwilling to communicate with others. If you did realise this when you removed the talk page, great, but your response is odd. If you didn't realise this, then you are clearly unfit to use any extra buttons on this project. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 00:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   (indents getting a bit long). I did remove the header after some more consideration, after reading some comments (including yours). I was more fearful of offending anyone rather than trying to appease anyone. After I asked you for clarification, I started thinking more about it, and began to see problems in it. I think in retrospect it was a joke that should have been there for about a week and became something else. Thanks a lot for your criticism of this, because it helped out a lot. As I said, after thinking it over (after posting my response) I saw the problems with it, but it wouldn't have been right to simply edit it out without giving a chance for response. My intent was never to create a hostile environment nor was it to appear like I don't care about Wikipedia. I do, deeply. The essay for me means more of a "Don't get so riled up" rather than, "Don't care about Wikipedia". DoomsDay349 00:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Pardon me for skimming the discussion, but is DoomsDay being opposed at all due to his age? One 05:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Not directly, but I would highly doubt if he were, say, 35, that the word "immature" would appear in such a discussion. Wikidan829 13:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm 13 and I'm doing fine as an admin... One 20:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Likewise I know many adult users who would not make suitable admins. Who cares what age he is... Majorly (talk | meet) 20:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   One, no worries about skimming the discussion, but if you read my comments a bit more closely, you would have seen that I actually mentioned that this has nothing to do with his age, and for me to hold this against the fellow would be rather hypocritical, as I, myself, am a student. Also, while you should feel free to participate in this discussion as fully or as superficially as you want, it seems silly that you would not read the discussions and simply sign your name in the supporting section, igoring the discussion and adding nothing of value to these proceedings. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 20:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose Well lemme think...yeah I think anyone who wants to be an admin should give a f**k talk page. Nick mallory 09:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Nick, did you actually read

   that essay? Wikidan829 16:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   No, and that's not the point. Imagine an editor, new to wikipedia, comes to his talk page for help or advice and the first thing he sees is the statement 'I don't give a fuck'? What sort of impression does that give, not just of this proposed admin but the whole project? That's not the right attitude for someone taking this seriously. Neither do I think writing 'Well lemme think...yeah' is good enough when writing answers to questions on this RfA. If it's good enough for you, then fine, but it's not good enough for me. Nick mallory 03:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose seems an alright guy, but not quite ready - he was on IRC last night and didn't know how to respond to a personal attack, and was asking for help. Not sure how he'll cope as an admin I'm afraid. Majorly (talk | meet) 12:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I mean no disrespect, but I'm awfully uncomfortable with an oppose that's based off something that happened in IRC. If the candidate is truly unprepared then surely you can dig up some diffs or on-wiki behavior that the rest of us can use to assess? To be clear, I'm not defending either, I'm just someone trying to make that assessment --JayHenry 15:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   This is the discussion. Majorly (talk | meet) 16:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose I agree with Nick. An admin must be concerned about comments users send his way. Perhaps he's just trying to be funny but it fails. Also, your user page doesn't belong to you. These two things are just signs of a touch of immaturity which I am confident he will come out of in time. But until then I cannot trust him with the tools. Sorry. JodyB _talk 14:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose; immaturity seems an issue. In response to supporters who've said opposes like these are ageist, this has nothing to do with age (I was 15 when I gained adminship), but general demeanor. Also, confronted another opposer in #wikipedia; I have no problem with asking for clarification on a comment, but doing so in an open channel, rather than via PM or e-mail, strikes me as obviously problematic (almost like trying to embarrass the user into changing their vote). Ral315 » 16:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose I'm a little concerned that you think blocking usernames is such an important task, and that such a large amount of time be spent on it. Not that it's not of value, but the resulting aggressive blocking of newbies is a bad thing. I guess immaturity is a concern also, but has good energy/attitude. Probably needs a little more tempering...
   RxS 04:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   This might just be my personal opinion, but I am reluctant to support a user who is doubtful about invoking IAR. I feel personally, that IAR is a important policy, and that, with common sense, it should be applied. Coupled with some immaturity issues, I will have to oppose this Rfa, but will be willing to support after a few more months. --DarkFalls ^talk 06:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Changed to neutral..again.[reply]

6. Admin deletes controversial article X. Deletion of Wikipedia article makes online news etc. Reporter follows link to deleting admin's page to get a little bit of info to add to report, finds "User does not give a fuck". Hilarity ensues. Also have concerns with maturity and the areas of focus, as well as not understanding Wikipedia's primary goal. Daniel 10:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
   • You do realize he took it down, right? Wikidan829 17:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, but it means I can't be confident on his future decision-making that he showed such poor judgement in the past. Daniel 04:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7. Oppose I appreciate editor's readiness to compromise, and respect a tentative approach to IAR. I see many good signs here. Still, editor has more to learn. I'd think that a renom. around his birthday would be very well-timed. Xoloz 22:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. I oppose granting the bit at this time, with no prejudice against a future nomination that I could probably support. I believe this user has more to learn before I would be comfortable with them as a sysop. Concur with Daniel and Xoloz in general. -- nae'blis 15:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose per weak answer to question #1. Also, per your comment that you "periodically report users" to
   WP:AIV, I see only one edit that you have made there in the last 3 months, so that doesn't seem very periodic to me. The one report that you did make [1] was the day before your RFA started. Oddly, it appears that next user who reported someone wiped off your entry and restored some from 30 minutes prior, so your request was never acted on. I would have preferred that you had followed up on this. I think that this attention to detail is necessary. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   You're going to hold him accountable because another user wiped out his entry? Is this a joke? Furthermore, I find it rare that a user gets as far as needing AIV, nearly all of them stop at, if not before, their last warning. Wikidan829 20:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Why would I joke about this? He said that he uses the AIV page, but his edit history says otherwise. And yes, if you take the trouble to post something, you generally look to see what the result was. Seeing that his request was neither accepted nor denied he should have taken further action. Whether or not most users need to be reported in not relevant; what is relevant are this candidates statements and actions. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose according to DoomsDays talk page, he's 13 (maybe 15 by now). I think he's too young to trust with the tools of an admin. BH (Talk) 00:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Switched to support[reply]

   I'm 14 currently and will be 15 in a few months; July 22, to be quite exact. Are there any other reasons you chose to oppose me? Always seeking to improve, you know, and I can't improve myself older :) DoomsDay349 01:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   No, you simply cannot oppose based on age. This just goes to show you haven't even bothered to look further than his userpage. As he says, do you have a proper reason to oppose or not? Signed, under-18 administrator Majorly (talk | meet) 19:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10. I cannot approve someone who does not show enough substance in their answers to 2 of 3 primary RFA questions. TML 08:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No, they are optional. He didn't have to answer them at all. How about looking at the candidates edits to come to a decision? Majorly (talk | meet) 19:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

11. Oppose. No euphemisms: I would very much prefer that we did not have 14 year old admins. Mr Stephen 08:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd very much prefer people assessing this candidate to bother to look past ageist views and look at the quality of his edits. Would you mind doing that? Signed, under-18 administrator Majorly (talk | meet) 19:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That would be editor review, somewhere down the corridor, I believe. Mr Stephen 19:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    So tell me, how did you come to the decision this user would make a bad administrator? Did you bother to look past his age? Clearly not, since that only happens at editor reviews according to you. Well, let me tell you, that's incorrect. This is a discussion about whether he'll make a good admin candidate. It's clear you haven't bothered to do that assessment, and simply imposed your ageist view on him. Nice work. Despite the fact we have plenty of 14 year old admins doing a fine job (and younger) you simply cannot accept the fact that someone so young could be mature enough to be able to do it. Please reconsider. Signed, under-18 administrator Majorly (talk | meet) 19:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think your tone in this section reflects very well on under-18 administrators, or for that matter administrators in general.

    RxS 20:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    Thanks for voicing your opinion, Rx StrangeLove. Simply put, I find this oppose as offensive as one based on race or gender. Would you think that is acceptable? Majorly (talk | meet) 21:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I may or may not find something offensive, but what counts in an administrator is how you react to it. I find your reactions here combative and strident. You'll note that I wasn't referring to your argument but to how you expressed it.

    RxS 21:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    Sorry, but I'm just fed up with ridiculous reasoning for opposing otherwise good candidates. I wish they'd at least say why a 14 year old wouldn't make a good admin. Majorly (talk | meet) 21:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In general, I think people should avoid making the generalization that underage people are immature and thus not suitable to be administrators. If you just look at the number of under-age admins here, you can see that they have all done excellent jobs. I think most of the underage people who come here to actually edit, and not vandalize, have a certain level of maturity to start with. Given that, it would not seem fair to deny someone a request for adminship because of age. If you could make a connection that this user appears to be immature and not suitable for adminship, then that's fine. However, please don't just oppose a user based on age, without actually considering the user's actual work. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Your reason is stupid, end of. Should I oppose you when you go up for RfA... for being too old?

    Matthew 19:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    Fellows, lets not get silly here. Mr. Stephen's opposition is as valid as any and given Wikipedia's ever-growing brand recognition and cultural impact, it's quite reasonable to expect administrators to have at least passed their A-levels (bit convenient that I met my rather superfluous requirement just a few months before becoming an admin, but there it is) gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 20:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm afraid Gaillimh that I rather disagree with your reasoning. It is very true that Wikipedia is quickly growing in terms of recognition and cultural impact and therefore we do need our administrators to be mature and trustworthy. However, it is equally important in terms of this growing cultural phenomenon that we are part of, that our administrators properly reflect the cultural make up of our editors. Now it's a fact that younger people tend to have different interests that older ones, so it makes a lot of sense to have younger administrators. Of course they need to be mature, but to say an oppose based simply on age which does not take into account maturity at all is entirely "valid" seems rather unfounded. As I (and others) have stated previously, we have a lot of administrators who haven't passed their A levels, to take your rather arbitrary definition. And there is absolutely no evidence to show that these have demonstrated themselves less equipped than the older ones. Furthermore, by your reasoning, are you saying that 20 year olds who dropped out of school at 16 and don't have A levels shouldn't be administrators? Perhaps I am reading too much into your argument, but to oppose an otherwise excellent candidate based on age or lack of a particular qualification is, in my opinion, shooting Wikipedia in the foot. Will (aka Wimt) 20:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed, mate, I think you took my comment a bit too literally without fully reading it (which is a bit of a paradox); see the word "superfluous", hehe. Disregarding the bit about A-levels for a moment here and focusing on the candidate himself, the larger issue is not with the fellow's age, but his maturity, or more aptly, his immaturity. A potential administrator having Current status: Not giving a fuck on his user talk page reflects poorly on not only himself, but Wikipedia at large, as it projects a hostile environment and an unwillingness to engage the community, and most importantly newcomers. It's nice that he removed it from his talk page during this RfA, but as he mentions, he did it not because he realised it created such an environment, but because he misinterpreted the opposition who he thought was offended by an essay he linked to (which, of course, is not the case). gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 21:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well actually I think you rather ambiguously phrased your statement. Although you described the requirement as superfluous, you also described it as "quite reasonable". Back to the more important issue though, I have never said that the candidate displaying "not giving a fuck" or whatever it was on his userpage was not a valid reason to oppose on maturity grounds. It is not one I agree with, but I respect those who oppose because of it. As such, I am not disputing your opposition. However, you will not that this particular oppose here states nothing more than "I would very much prefer that we did not have 14 year old admins." That, I feel strongly, is not a valid oppose reason unless backed up with evidence and it makes me think the opposer has done nothing more than read the candidate's age and typed oppose. I hope that isn't the case, but that's what I am so strongly against. And I'm glad you aren't serious about opposing based on any particular qualifications because I would also be strongly against that. Will (aka Wimt) 21:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh dear. First of all, let me say (further to a message at my talk page) that I am not here to offend anyone. I haven't made any comment about DoomsDay349, simply noted his age: I don't say "DD is 14 therefore he will be a bad administrator"; I say I would prefer not to have 14 year old administrators. The foundation has made a start at requiring certain positions here to be filled only by those over 18 and over the age of majority. Have accusations of ageism have been levelled at them? Feel free to give me a hard time at a venue of your choice, but this RFA is probably not the best place. Mr Stephen 21:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It simply isn't fair on the candidate to oppose based on that alone. Just because they are doing it for checkusers doesn't mean they are for admins. I see nowhere there being an age requirement to be an admin. So why force one unnecessarily? And I ask again, please look at the user's edits, not his age. Thank you. Majorly (talk | meet) 21:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't believe the foundation's 18+ policy was a result of concerns over maturity. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I thought this was done so that the foundation could confirm users' identities (to avoid another Essjay controversy) without having to disclose information of a child if it was ever needed. This isn't really needed for adminship. It's only needed for things that are only given to trusted people (ie. checkuser, oversight). Signed, under 18 user, --R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 23:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC) (sorry Majorly, just had to copy that :) )[reply]

    I agree. I think I've only seen such a thing with Stewards. Wikidan829 23:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, accusations of ageism have been levelled at the Foundation, not least by the users who had taken on these responsibilities only to be stripped of them despite doing a perfectly good job. Essentially, they've got jittery over legal issues, and decided that all contributors in these positions must be over 18 and supply proof of identity to them. This means that if they screw up and someone tries to take legal action, the Foundation can send the lawyers after them rather than being sued themselves. Pathetic, but bearable – Gurch 22:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mr Stephen, could you elaborate on why you would prefer not to have 14 year old administrators?--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 23:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

12. Oppose per questions and maturity concerns. Friday (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd find that the ability to prioritize and concentrate on what's important epitomizes the maturity in a candidate. Ddcc 00:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Per my comments above. Pending answer for the questions, before making a decision. --DarkFalls ^talk 09:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Switched to oppose[reply]

1. Neutral - Some sterling work, but I recognise the concerns of
   bitey and prone to rushing in which won't be so hot with the buttons - e.g. [2] Using this type of template seems rather bitey and also [3] seems to have jumped the gun. Otherwise a great contributor but I'm worried about letting out the tools here at the moment - Neutral for now I'm afraid. Pedro |  Chat  09:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   Neutral. Contribs look pretty good, but concerns brought up about possibly being a little quick tempered give me pause. Also curious to see answers to the newly submitted questions above. Changed to support per answers to questions

   Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

2. Neutral I read the essay on Don't Give a F**k, and while the philosophy is ok the use of language is immature. I will not oppose, as I think that this editor has real potential, but on the basis of perceived immaturity I cannot support at this time.--
   Anthony.bradbury 18:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. Neutral for what I perceive as lack of maturity and conflict-resolution skills. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral Seems well on their way towards becoming a superb editor, but the maturity and temper aspects concern me. I realize the Internet is an anonymous venue, but Wikipedia strives to keep a cohesive sense of community. I'm not exactly sure if this user could keep with that goal. I like the edits and the future of the editor, but now is not the right time. Jmlk17 22:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. I am changing to neutral here, due to my misintepretation of the answer to my question {IAR). The reasons for support and oppose are extremely balanced, and although I am still leaning towards oppose due to reasons of bad temperament, there are numerous edits of experience and knowledge. --Dark Falls ^talk 11:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. While the FUCK essay has a good message overall, I am somewhat concerned about how the candidate applies it. --Merovingian (T-C-E) 03:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Neutral I cannot get a strong enough impression of this editor to make a decision either way, so vote neutral. I don't really give a f**k about his not giving a f**k. As for his age, there are other successful younger admins. Appears to have made a substantial contribution. Still, I really did not get a great sense from reading the answers to his questions that he would make a stellar admin. IAR basically comes down to exercise common sense. That for me has got to be one of the most important principles of Wikipedia. Its exhausting seeing some of the things that wind up in XFD or otherwise tying up editorial time because IAR is not applied. —Gaff ^ταλκ 17:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• While opinions seem to be what RfA is about, there are several comments here, and on other RfAs, both positive and negative, that cannot be backed by anything. They have no verifiability, and several people above make comments based on "what the guy above me said", when the guy above him may not be able to back up his claims. I could say (and this is extreme) that I ran into DoomsDay349 at the store and he kicked me in the shins, he clearly doesn't qualify for adminship. This just isn't right. I would kindly request that, especially to the people who opposed him, or are neutral: if you said "per user above" or something similar, be sure that the user can back it up and you're not just taking his/her word for it, for the rest, it would be really nice to see some evidence/examples of your claims. I don't see why the quality of RfAs should be any different from what we expect of our articles. We can't rely on he said she said. Peace.. Wikidan829 23:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are very accurate and fair. However with the exception of JodyB (who in fairness also then fleshed out her answer) I can't see a single example at time of posting of your above statements within neutral and oppose. All the editors have made there own comments and not "oppose as per" or "neutral as above". I know this happens a lot on other RfA's, and as I say you are dead right that there should be verifiability to claims, but I don't see any issues on this one. Pedro |  Chat  07:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I won't name any particular users. I want to see who first used the word "mature", then who else made "maturity" an issue afterward, for example. Personally looking at the users, and probably the same with his supporters, I find him more mature than a lot of people here, and certainly enough to be an admin. While I should be assuming better faith, this does seem to be an indirect "what the guy above me said" mentality that is damaging and unnecessary. It would be nice if users had to completely vote on their own opinions, rather than have a chance of being influenced by those who already voted and just trying to follow a trend. I've been accused of being too much of an idealist. ;) Wikidan829 11:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To an extent I do agree - there is often a "herd mentality" at RfA - "if plenty of other editors support then so should I" and vice versa. Within that context there may be an issue here regarding the <immaturity> votes, although that was not the reason for my neutral at all. Just one point I do feel is germane would be that sometimes an editor digs further than others, and uncovers something quite concerning (not in this RfA to clarify) and that revelation is then enough for others to oppose without needing to make further opinions of there own. I won't mention any specific RfA's, as I've been shot down in flames by another editor before for referncing one RfA within another, so sorry about the lack of diffs to evidence this. Pedro |  Chat  11:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good, thanks for the dialog. I wanted to get that out, maybe confirm that I'm not the only (in)sane one here. We don't need another clown show. Wikidan829 03:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.