Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/JamieS93

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Edit count for JamieS93

User:JamieS93

   run at Sun Aug 24 21:20:29 2008 GMT

   Category:              19
   Help:                  1
   Image:                 12
   Mainspace              2791
   Portal:                7
   Talk:                  170
   Template talk:         58
   Template:              98
   User talk:             784
   User:                  126
   Wikipedia talk:        24
   Wikipedia:             359
   avg edits per page     1.58
   earliest               16:58, 5 November 2007
   number of unique pages 2813
   total                  4449

   2007/11 10
   2007/12 16
   2008/1  92
   2008/2  444
   2008/3  729
   2008/4  1258
   2008/5  674
   2008/6  339
   2008/7  378
   2008/8  509

   (green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red
   denotes edits without an edit summary)

                 Mainspace
   66 [2]Leeland
   66 [3]Matthew West
   28 [4]Thirty Years' War
   27 [5]Skillet (band)
   24 [6]Georgia Democratic primary, 2008
   24 [7]Kristallnacht
   22 [8]Needtobreathe
   22 [9]TobyMac
   20 [10]The Heat (Needtobreathe album)
   20 [11]BarlowGirl
   13 [12]Even Heroes Need a Parachute
   12 [13]Children 18:3
   12 [14]Georgia Republican primary, 2008
   11 [15]Chasen
   10 [16]Jonas Brothers

                       Talk:
   10 [17]Matthew West
   6  [18]Leeland
   5  [19]Underoath/GA1
   4  [20]Pie
   4  [21]Skillet (band)
   3  [22]Relient K
   3  [23]The Heat (Needtobreathe album)
   3  [24]Ron Paul
   3  [25]Needtobreathe
   3  [26]Matthew West/GA1
   3  [27]The Heat (Needtobreathe album)/Comments
   2  [28]Thirty Years' War
   2  [29]The Heat
   2  [30]Clarion (programming language)
   2  [31]Hannah Montana

                      Category:
   3 [32]B-Class Contemporary Christian articles
   2 [33]Start-Class Contemporary Christian articles

                Image:
   2 [34]SomethingtoSayalbumcover.jpg

                Portal:
   2 [35]Christian music/Good articles

             Template:
   55 [36]Did you know/Next update
   7  [37]Categorization progress
   6  [38]Spotlight
   3  [39]Leeland
   3  [40]X6
   3  [41]BarlowGirl
   2  [42]Dove Award years
   2  [43]Spotlight Barnstar

     Template talk:
   57 [44]Did you know

                  User:
   67 [45]JamieS93
   14 [46]JamieS93/Userboxes
   7  [47]JamieS93/monobook.js
   5  [48]JamieS93/otherpage
   5  [49]JamieS93/Awards
   2  [50]WBOSITG/Feeder discography FT
   2  [51]Red4tribe
   2  [52]JamieS93/Status
   2  [53]SwirlBoy39

               User talk:
   16 [54]JamieS93
   14 [55]Royalbroil
   4  [56]Deepak D'Souza
   4  [57]Lovewikiii
   4  [58]Wiki131wiki
   4  [59]98.217.29.198
   3  [60]Pastordavid
   3  [61]Jaespinoza
   3  [62]Letter 7
   3  [63]Cabletekk
   3  [64]216.162.216.27
   3  [65]Hornplayer2
   3  [66]Catswilltakeovertheworld1day
   3  [67]Landon1980
   3  [68]216.48.128.60

                       Wikipedia:
   24 [69]Administrator intervention against vandalism
   21 [70]Help desk
   7  [71]Spotlight/Current
   6  [72]Requests for adminship/Kerotan
   6  [73]Peer review/Matthew West (musician)/archive1
   6  [74]Usernames for administrator attention
   5  [75]New admin school/Deleting/delete/archive1
   4  [76]Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 13
   4  [77]Requests for adminship/Gatoclass 2
   4  [78]WikiProject Categories/uncategorized
   4  [79]Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters
   4  [80]Spotlight/Members
   4  [81]Good article nominations
   3  [82]Reference desk/Computing
   3  [83]Spotlight/Current/Page

                  Wikipedia talk:
   4 [84]Twinkle
   3 [85]WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles
   3 [86]WikiProject Categories/uncategorized
   3 [87]WikiProject Christian music
   2 [88]Copyrights
   2 [89]Spotlight
   2 [90]WikiProject Awards
   2 [91]WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Friendly

   If there were any problems, please [92]email Interiot or post at
   [93]User talk:Interiot.
  • The edit count was retrieved from this link at 21:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC).

Friday's oppose

  1. Kid admins have generally poor judgement, and bring the project into disrepute. Friday (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment What makes you think this editor will bring the project into disrepute. Look at RFA candidates as editors, not an age group. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 21:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Friday, does this editor have poor judgement? I fear you're generalising too much here. There are many adult admins with poorer judgement than this editor, yet they would pass your apparent criteria here... Majorly talk 21:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) Friday, we have loads of high school-aged administrators. Jamie isn't nine and appears to be trustworthy; what reason do you have to oppose? —
    Hello! 21:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I hate badgering the only opposer in an RfA, but this sort of oppose doesn't make me regret it. The key word in Friday's rationale is generally, for there can be, and most definitely are, exceptions. Who's to say JamieS93 isn't one of them? —Animum (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, we've had this kind of oppose before. Friday has the right to have this opinion and use this forum to express it. Darkspots (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He indeed can have his opinions, but saying they're not open to debate is completely at odds with the idea of discussion. —Animum (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What bugs me about this oppose is a) It's a general statement about no particular admins -there's no names mentioned about which admins have particularly poor judgement (which is probably a good idea, but I don't believe there are any) b) It's not about the candidate. Friday did not check the candidate's edits, history, or anything important but instead has placed a blanket statement, which isn't even backed up by evidence. Majorly talk 22:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's probably got something to do with the Steve Crossin affair! I myself will judge on the answers to the questions... John Sloan (
    talk) 22:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Steve Crossin isn't that young... –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just pointing out that the recent "age problem" some people have could be because of that incident. John Sloan (
    talk) 22:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Fair enough. Just wanted to clarify that youth and those issues aren't related :) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would hate to think that anything I did would cause other users to be opposed in an RFA... --
    ark // 02:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Those who haven't been following things over there might get confused by your statement here, Coffee. Carcharoth (talk) 03:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. What an absolutely horrible, terrible, baseless reason to oppose an RfA. There are several admins of a similar age. At least it's clear that you practice, embrace and encourage ageism. Bstone (talk) 13:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of expansion

I'll try to explain a bit, but I probably won't engage in extended discussion. I make no guarantee that my reasoning will make sense to anyone but me- I'm just giving one editor's opinion. Yes, I'm basing this opinion on a rather small amount of information. My RFA opinions are sometimes based mostly on intuition. Knowing only that this editor is a high schooler in a chat room, I lean toward opposition. I haven't seen anything so far to make the balance sway the other way, so my gut tells me that this is probably a poor candidate. Take it for whatever it's worth. Friday (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion, but I just wanted to ask you one question. Had Jamie not revealed her age on her userpage, could you still have determined how young she is? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to be technical about it, as far as I can tell, Jamie hasn't revealed her age on her userpage. She says that she's a
high school student, which is not quite the same thing (i.e., most likely between 14 and 18). That makes this oppose all the more confusing, for me - while a 14-year-old might not make a good admin, I don't see any problems with an 18-year-old being one. (But then again, it's Friday's decision, and he's free to oppose for whatever reason he wants.) Terraxos (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Seeing the 93 in her username I would not be surprised if she's from 1993, making her 14 or 15. But that's just a guess.    SIS  00:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No idea what conclusions I'd have drawn with different information. I can only go on what I have. I assumed 93 was a date of birth, yes. But, whether 14 or 18, neither one is an adult. And I think much harm is caused by admins who lack reasonable adult judgement. So, I am unlikely to support people who aren't yet adults, unless I see compelling evidence of maturity and judgement beyond their years. Friday (talk) 01:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to support, of course, but you also don't have to oppose. What instances of immaturity have you seen from this candidate? To oppose based on a stereotyped view that isn't shared by this user is horribly unfair to the candidate, and an abuse of this process. Additionally, what kind of "evidence" were you looking for that would persuade you to change your opinion? Majorly talk 01:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Horribly unfair? Abuse of this process? Whoa, what's next,
Godwin's Law? With all due respect Majorly, I think you're rather overdoing it.    SIS  01:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Please don't be sarcastic. I can understand you don't care about the editor when you make your prejudiced comments, but I as a nominator feel a duty to try and put some clue into some rather unfortunate opposes. Opposing for things that have nothing to do with adminship, and nothing to do with the candidate is abuse of the process. I'm not prepared to argue about that. If you think it's acceptable, then you can think that. Majorly talk 01:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I didn't care about the editor I wouldn't bother with this, and calling me clueless and prejudiced is a personal attack I don't appreciate. The reasoning behind my vote is on the RfA page. You may not agree with it but that's something else. If you believe 14-year olds would make fine admins, cool. I don't. No matter how mature she may be for her age, it still doesn't give her the experiences of an adult. And that has everything to do with adminship.    SIS  02:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have many young admins on this project who are well respected and are doing just fine. I've yet to see one example of an underage admin with exceptionally poor judgement. It's the adults on this project who are the ones who get sanctioned and desysopped. You're very much mistaken in thinking you need to be an adult to be an admin as well. Deleting a page does not require "adultness". Nor does protecting a page or blocking a vandal. Of course, you wouldn't know this, because you aren't an admin. But I thought I'd let you know anyway. There's nothing I've come across in nearly 2 years of adminship (on multiple projects) that required me to be an adult. The argument that one needs to be an adult to be an admin is nonsensical.
I call you prejudiced because you are... you've admitted quite clearly you only looked at the candidate's age, and immediately opposed. That's what prejudice is. Pre-judgment. If you'd bothered to look at the candidate's edits, perhaps you'd have found a better reason to vote for. But, you quite clearly didn't. And that's another abuse of the process - not actually checking the candidate's edits before making a comment. Majorly talk 02:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting how you claim to know what I've been doing before I voted. Where you here? I don't remember seeing you. Anyway, I may have been sarcastic, but I find your tone and attitude pretty arrogant and offensive and I'm not prepared to discuss this any further.    SIS  02:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing of course, but since you didn't actually oppose based on the candidate's actions, instead imposed your warped view of what adminship is about, I can only assume you didn't actually look at the candidate's edits. Am I right or wrong? Or are you going to give up on this because you don't have a good argument to write back? Majorly talk 02:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An attack based on guesses. Great. And then you call me prejudiced. As said, I'm done talking to you, I'm taking this to the Incidents noticeboard.    SIS  02:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find you won't get much support there.--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 03:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not expecting any. I'm just wondering if I completely misunderstood
WP:CIVIL.
   SIS  03:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • I'll
    Mozart (or, for a contemporary example, Alia Sabur) with the mop, simply because he's not as old as the "mature" folks who won't even be humble enough to give the guy a chance? C'mon... Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
If Mozart or Alia used their accounts only for vandalism, I'd sure as hell oppose them- and report them to AIV to boot. :) It's on wiki contribs that matter, not actions unrelated to Wikipedia or arbitrary factors like age, etc. (note that I'm currently opposing, and not saying anything about this particular candidate, but age-based opposes in general). Erik the
Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Majorly's actions versus JamieS93's

(copied from main page)

  1. Oppose - per age and (lesser so) Majorly's badgering of opposes. Qb | your 2 cents 12:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You have all right to oppose, but I think you should not base it on Majorly's actions but only on JamieS93's. It's not her fault how Majorly decides to comment and she cannot control it and thus it should not reflect negatively on her. SoWhy 12:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really agree with this. It's happened before that a nominator reflects poorly on the nominee, and people say "don't blame the nominee." Well, sometimes I think it is sensible to blame the nominee. To be non-disruptive as an admin, you need some wisdom and social adeptness. If JamieS93 had known better, she'd have refused the nomination from Majorly, and had someone a bit more mature do it instead. She failed to do this. This does tell us a little something about her. We already knew she was a teenager in a chat room, but now we also know that she's a teenager in a chat room who thinks support from other teenagers in chat rooms is a good way to help her case. Maybe this sounds a little tenuous, but I think it's helpful sometimes to read between the lines. Any available information that gives us insight about the nominee should be considered. Friday (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any sensible bureaucrat will discount that oppose immediately, as age is irrelevant to adminship, and so are my responses to opposes. Majorly talk 14:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how Majorly is badgering. He's simply discussing matters with !voters. which is what the point of an RfA is about—to discuss. Otherwise it's no more than a vote that goes by arbitrary percentages. That said, even if Majorly is badgering the opposes, it's hardly Jamie's fault. How is she to know how the nominator will behave, and how is it her fault? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how someone could reasonably see this as anything but badgering. Are all your opposes this lame? is not calm discussion. (I'm aware that you might not be aware of this edit, Juliancolton) (Followup: ok, that edit was four minutes before your comment above. Still not calm discussion) Darkspots (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point was just that reasons for oppose should be seeked within the nominee's deeds not their choice of "friends" (if that's the right word). You cannot predict how other people will react and you should not be blamed for their actions. Friday, I think you are overreacting here, because Jamie has not commented on any of that. So we just don't know if she approves of Majorly's actions or opposes them and the point of an RfA should be to judge what the nominee does, not what someone defending him/her does. Because even if the nominator was the most well-behaving, cool-headed guy on this project, you can never guarantee that he/she will not wreck havoc once your RfA is up and running. SoWhy 15:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with some of what you're saying. To be non-disruptive as an admin, you need some wisdom and subtlety. Hot-headedness and excessively black-or-white thinking are undesirable traits. Admins need to think about unintended consequences. They need to consider not only how an action was intended, but also how it will be seen by others. There's a big faction of immature kids running around the project, and I do my best to make sure they don't get admin buttons. What's wrong with knowing them by the company they keep? Friday (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, you cannot predict how people will act and you should not judge Jamie by the way Majorly comments. We are discussing her request for adminship, not his. Because by your logic I could destroy any nominee's adminship request by just "badgering" everyone opposing, thus creating more opposes that will harm the candidate...I'll just have to claim to be supportive of the candidate. Thus I do not think anyone's actions but the ones of the candidate are to be a reason to support, oppose or stay neutral. And I guess the closing 'crat will disregard both supports and opposes that have no connection to the nominee. SoWhy 17:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many people already knew that this is how Majorly tends to behave when he disagrees with opposers. I know I expected it, and I assume others did too. A reasonable candidate should have known better than to accept this nomination. This candidate did not. Friday (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then you'd rather say that to everyone who has accepted a nom from Majorly? He is a really good guy, just doesn't behave a lot. I was nom'd by Majorly in late December 2007, and he stood up for me. I really feel that all this bickering is BS and should really stop. Majorly wants to nom her, and that's a resonable decision. You, however, are dragging things farther than they need to.Mitch32(UP) 18:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"He is a really good guy, just doesn't behave a lot." I see. So I should just ignore his comments here and here? This is a definition of 'really good guy' that's new to me, you see. Don't want to turn this into a discussion about Majorly but I find your description a bit strange. Note to user Friday: I didn't expect this at all. Glad you did and still decided to voice your opinion, though. Had I known what would happen I probably would have reconsidered.    SIS  23:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There comes a point where a candidate needs to tell their nom to shut up. The nom should also know that their job is to
see rule 3. The fact that Jamie didn't admonish her nom when it was clear that he was doing her harm, doesn't look good for the candidate. (Lest you think I'm picking on Majorly here, note that the first quote is my nom telling ME to shut up when I was being overly defensive and started to impact his RfA.)---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 05:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)EDIT: At some point this evening, Jamie did in fact tell her nom that she disapproved of his behavior. I only wish she had done so earlier. It might have kept me from moving to the oppose. But her failure to do so, became complicit acceptance of his behavior---that is why it matters. By failing to address a rogue nominator, she accepted his behavior.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 05:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Since your argument here at least mostly rests upon age being a negative, which is itself rather debatable (as seen above), I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up just as unpersuasive. (You can debate it, of course, but I doubt anything will come of this while the latter question is unresolved.) —AySz88\^-^ 17:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the fact Comment:Shouldn't I be told when theres this kinda hubub going on about one of my votes? My vote was mostly due to age, as evident by the fact that it is listed first. A lesser issue, which gained my attention, was Majorly's attitude. I still would have opposed due to age alone. However, since Majorly was acting... well, like he acts, I felt that it should be mentioned as well. His follow up on my page was regretful. However, I will not be baited into making personal attacks. I really wonder how a person this obtuse and (apparently) disruptive could have gained the bit in the first place. And further, why it is accepted by the community. It is not my place to start throwing around RfCs and AN/Is... so I wont. I'm still relatively new compared with the rest of ya'lls, so I wont even begin to start that drama parade.
  • Majorly's conduct look(ed/s) bad on Jamie. I wont fault her for not knowing that he is a little toxic to RfAs... its not her duty to be on the up and up with all of the drama that Wiki entails. Many good folks help the project just fine without running into the zomgdramaz that hides in the shadows. I will fault her for not telling him to stop, though (when it was that I made my vote... she has since told him to knock it off). This comment was simply to summarize my beliefs, and have them out in the open. Qb | your 2 cents 13:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see you not wanting to be baited into personal attacks. Along these lines, it might be better not to call another person "obtuse" or disruptive, but rather focus on their disruptive edits, such as repetitious argumentation with oppose votes. Like you, I am concerned about such argumentation and wouldn't want guilt by association. I'm not convinced that she should be faulted much for not rebuking Majorly more quickly, that kind of finesse w/one's nom and sense of how to handle an RfA isn't a big aspect of the sysop job. Thanks. HG | Talk 14:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could have called him alot worse. Obtuse is perfectly fine, as it describes personality. When I mentioned disruptive, I added "apparently" in front of it, as I am gaining this info from others who have more experience with him. Qb | your 2 cents 14:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your civil and reasoned reply. Maybe I shouldn't belabor this. But why comment on somebody's inferred personality instead of their direct actions? Just as we try not to get into
intentionality, we don't gain much by focusing on our inferences about their personality or character. Thanks. HG | Talk 14:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
No problem having a conversation about this.  :) Personality is mostly an inferred thing. One bunch of friends would say that I am very extroverted, by the people I work with would say that I'm pretty introverted. It all depends on who does the inferring. Obtuse isnt necessarily a negative personality trait. I would say that my father is very obtuse, but in the end he's usually right in his stubbornness. I'm not trying to gain anything by trying to figure out a personality except to try to understand where the other is coming from. Empathy is often the best thing all around to diffuse high tension conversations. Qb | your 2 cents 14:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very nicely put. I wish you had said more of this above and I'm glad you're adding this. I'm not entirely sure that obtuse isn't negative. Above, you basically say that overly obtuse personality shouldn't be an admin, so it seems to be a negative factor. Unless you mean to say that M. is usually wrong in their stubbornness, unlike your father. Certainly, there's no problem in criticizing somebody because you think they are usually wrong. HG | Talk 15:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, but I said it wasnt necessarily a negative trait. Yes, I do believe that M is generally wrong in his stubbornness... but one straw (me) doth not a broken camel (desysopping) make.  ;) Qb | your 2 cents 15:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Majorly's response to balloonman

  1. You have some nerve to criticise me after your behaviour here. Once again, another oppose that has nothing to do with the candidate. Any sensible bureaucrat will immediately discount this vote for that reason. Please stop trying to cause drama and trying to disrupt this already stressful process. Majorly talk 21:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't turn this into a battleground. This is supposed to be about the candidate. Synergy 21:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, so I hope nonsense comments about who the nominator is will go away. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 21:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And I hope the College I go to will let me wear a hat during class this year.--KojiDude (C) 21:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's see why do I question your judgement? Perhaps it is something simple and rationale? Like just the other day when you indicated that |1000 good edits and 3 months is plenty of experience. Or perhaps it is because you chose to goad me where rather than deal with the concept of a discussion you made it personal---|is because people like Balloonman insist on opposing them for that very reason! or until the likes of certain individuals turned up and turned them down. Of course you have a history of goading others that you disagree with. [others with snide comments in RfA's. Or even here during this RfA when you chase people around to be insulting. But let's not forget your shining moment. So, yes, I did make a major mistake, but you have a history of making mistakes. I'd rather rely on somebody who made a single mistake, recognizes, and is trying to redeem himself than somebody with a continual history of poor judgment. Of course, I really might have been referring to the simple and rationale reason that I didn't trust your judgement. Hmmm could be? I didn't review the candidate close enough (thus my initial weak support per my voting guidelines) and rely upon the nom. But your lack of standards and willingness to support just about anybody makes me question how thoroughly you vetted the candidate. That with the other issues, makes me change my stance.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 23:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Really, after what you YES YOU did to DHMO, you should have enough shame not to show your face in RFA for at least 6 months, if not a year. Baloonman, nobody respects your judgment anymore, you should know that! --Dragon695 (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that some don't I'm fine with that... I know that some do, I'm fine with that. As for not showing my face here... fat chance. You see, when you mess up you have a choice to run and hide, or face up to your mistakes. I'm taking a clue from H20, with whom I've made peace, and taking the road of not hiding (just as he didn't at GA.) Of course, others can judge me for the contributions that I make on a regular basis, or hold one isolated incident against a person. I guess I know where you stand.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 00:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I overreacted, I'm sorry for being rude. You are quite right. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you apology accepted, and if I came off harsh, I apologize as well. I KNOW I blew it with Giggy... and if Giggy/H20 had asked me not to return to RfA or asked me to step down, I probably would have. Instead, he showed me that I was right in my initial assessment, that he should be an admin when he forgave me. I honestly don't know if I could have done what he did... and he's reiterated his support in other places, which is why I am willing to tread on here. I don't expect him to invite me to Christmas dinner, but I do think he'd willingly lend me a hand if I asked.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 01:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh jeez. This is why I stay away from RfA. I don't even need to comment to create drama anymore. :-) —Giggy 07:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Friday

personal attacks
masquerading as legitimate criticism. Let's try an experiment, would anyone tolerate this:

I suggest that we would not. Why? Because it is filled with baseless speculation, scurrilous innuendo, and a general lack of

WP:NPA. I suggest that the community consider topic banning Friday from all RFA's if he persists with these personal attacks. If you insist on opposing, then just say oppose due to age concerns and do NOT insert unproven allegations about the candidate in question. Note that Kurt Weber's oppose is exactly the kind of neutrally worded, polite way that I am speaking of. Regardless of how others behave, Friday, you are not permitted to get your pot-shots in against the candidate. No more dime-store psychology, we don't want to hear it. Thanks and have a nice day! --Dragon695 (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

No matter how hard I try, for the life of me, I cannot extract from Friday's oppose the crass personal attacks you seem to be able to. I think a topic ban is exceedingly harsh. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We reserve the status of will bring this project into disrepute to the worst of the worst offenders (PPA's, TRUTHER's, etc). I do not think it is appropriate language to use in addressing a candidate merely on the basis of age. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to be reasonable and explain my opinions without engaging in hyperbole. That's all we can expect from anyone, right? Friday (talk) 00:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. While we may not agree with it, everybody is entitled to their own opinion. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I wasn't clear. I would respectfully request that people share the opinion without attributing x, y, and z unproven actions to it. It is that simple. I can imagine why these young people get angry everytime Friday comes around. He's basically saying that they will do x, y, and z because they are a certain age. If it isn't based on proof, it doesn't belong in the !votes. Sorry. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proof?! We never have proof- RFA is about trying to guess how someone will use the tools, ahead of time. We don't know anything for sure until after they have them. I make my guesses based on all information that seems relevant to me at the time. I'd love to instead be able to give someone the tools, observe how they use them, and then have an RFA, but that's not how the process works right now. We do the best we can with what we have. Friday (talk) 01:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Friday, I don't know you but may I ask you a couple questions? When you refer to the candidate as a "teenager in a chat room," isn't that a put down? You then say "Maybe this sounds a little tenuous, but I think it's helpful sometimes to read between the lines," but isn't that trying to justify
an absence of good faith presumptions? You also mention "available information," did I miss some data about inappropriate canvassing in chat rooms? Or is the "information" an inference? Anyway, I certainly don't feel as strongly as the editor above, but your comments do raise these q's for me. Thanks. HG | Talk 01:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
And that is why we allow 14 years olds drive a car, own guns, drink beer (which I support) but there are a number of things that we don't allow kids to do. There is enough history in the world to know that teenagers are more likely to act like teens than adults. Now, I'm willing to overlook youthfulness up to a point, but it is just as valid (if not more valid) than many other reasons I've seen.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 01:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you really want to pursue this line of reasoning... why not consider gender, too? Teenage boys show different types of immaturity than girls. Many parents entrust their babies (whom they value above all else) to 14 and 15 year old girls. The fact that society does not allow girls to drink or own guns (or vote) hardly establishes their inability to serve as a sysop. Thanks for your consideration. HG | Talk 01:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite simple, in Western culture, we allow for making many distinctions based upon age, but we frown upon it for gender. The laws in most industrialized western nations recognize that basic fact. They impose rules on the young, and rightfully so. They frown upon or flat or forbid discrimination about race/gender/national origin/religion/etc.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 01:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that none of those privileges/rights are comparable to being an administrator on Wikipedia. In fact, they're like night and day. Such restrictions are enforced to protect lives. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, many jobs have various requirements. A 15 year old can't work past 7 pm or more than 20 hours per week (4 hours per day). Many companies won't hire a 15 year old. Banks won't hire tellers until they reach a certain age. Even companies that hire a majority of their employees from high school kids won't let the teenager be a shift manager until they are 18. Try delivering pizza's at the age of 16, you might be able to get a license, but you can't deliver pizzas. Try getting a credit card on your own or signing a contract (in the US.) Until you are 18 (or legally emancipated) you can't. These are not designed to protect lives, but rather the companies reputation and/or assets. Admins are the same way, they protect the reputation of wikipedia and can have a major impact on how others view the project. Face it, a 50 year old PhD may not respond positively to a 15 year old kid who acts like a teenage. (Again, I have nomed 2-3 high schoolers for adminship, so I'm willing to over look age, but it is a valid concern.) It has a more defendable rationale than opposing somebody for undergoing coaching or self-nominations... or heck, because of the antics of the nominator.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 01:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you are coming from, but this is a volunteer encyclopedia project. The expectations of and standards for teenagers in the real word (i.e credit, driving or a job) are higher (or should be) than the virtual. I just don't see the comparability. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Age is a different criterion than race, religion or gender, and can't be compared with them. Age is about growing up, learning things, getting experienced, maturing, etc. All people of all race and religion go through that process, regardless of their colour, beliefs, or gender. It's the one journey everybody has to make. Which is why I think that throwing 'ageism' on the same pile as racism and sexism doesn't make a lot of sense. It's also why I think that in the first 20 (or so) years of a life, age gives a rough indication of that person's life experience and maturity.    SIS  01:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The similarity is that people cannot help anything about their age. They can choose their maturity level, but cannot modify the year of their birth. It is also something people should not and would not otherwise feel ashamed of, since they cannot modify it. The same applies for race, and for gender (without major surgery), and sometimes for religion (esp. 'ethnic' religions, though abandoning your old religion is more accepted now than in the past). While people do grow older, telling people to wait years may as well be equivalent to asking someone to wait decades in older times, considering the pace that Wikipedia runs at. If the candidate is otherwise fine, the delay does not seem at all helpful to the project by my reckoning. —AySz88\^-^ 02:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guess what... tough. The fact that somebody is a teenager doesn't give him/her the rights/freedoms as an adult regardless of how much you wish it were otherwise. It doesn't give a teenager the wisdom/maturity/vision/education that one gets after 30/40/50 years. The good news is that you will grow out of it, just give it time. Race, religion, and gender are protected classes (in America) for a reason. Youthfulness isn't. Again, I am willing to support (or even nom) teenagers, but this bellyaching about "it's not fair" is a reality of life.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 05:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC) EDIT: As for your comment about waiting years, that is a part of life as well. By saying "It's not fair that the only solution to my youthfulness is to grow up" you aren't conving those who have been there. We've all had to wait for things that we wanted now. Patience is a sign of maturity.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 14:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I am saying that age is an end-all or be-all, but it is a basis for an oppose. Think of it this way. A fifteen year old can't get a job at Walmart, but they can become an admin. Now, where can they do the most damage? At a single Walmart where they might interact with 100 people on a given day or on the seventh most visited site on the web? A single mistake might impact a local walmart, but the odds of it making the local news are slim. Even if it does, people will go "Stupid teenager." On Wikipedia, a single mistake might garner NATIONAL news in a heart beat. When it is revealed to be a teenager, it looks doubly bad for wikipedia.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 02:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a place for the application of "Western culture" (at least in any intentional way). Wikipedians are expected to not act simply based upon some cultural tradition - they are expected to see what is best for the project. Any justification like "in Western culture, we..." just shouldn't apply here. —AySz88\^-^ 02:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Generally I agree, but if I were to make broad statements such as "women's equality" or "racial equality" or "religious equality", then those notions are Western Concepts. Other parts of the world do not have laws/regulations to ensure racial/sexual/religious equality. Thus, if I were to say, "we allow for making many distinctions based upon age, but we frown upon it for gender." That might not be true in some cultures where gender inequality is the norm. In which case, Dragon's hypothetical would be acceptable. Plus, right or wrong, the majority of users on the English Wikipedia are from western culture.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 02:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would have thought these concepts of equality on Wikipedia come from our inherent anonymity and the fact that nobody has to disclose anything about their real identity, not from the fact that Western culture has an influence on most English-speakers. I suppose this debatable, though; a kind of chicken-and-egg question. —AySz88\^-^ 03:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Outdent) as a general comment to the "ageism shouldn't apply here" responses, it sucks but in the 21st century this is how we both raise and treat kids (in the OECD world, which, let's face it, is 99% of wikipedia's users). This may mean that some teenagers get a bad rap. But
    RfA is not the place to right great wrongs. If teenagers want to get the bit than the easiest way to avoid the opposes (legit and otherwise) is to be circumspect about age. Announcing it and then standing by while the co-noms and others badger t he opposes isn't the right way to do things. Protonk (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
(EC)But it goes along with Protonk's comments: Questions of equality are largely a 20th century western phenomenon... our anonymity does give us some equality, insofar as we can't tell another person's age, race, religion, sex, etc unless they reveal it. The shame is when somebody does reveal it, it becomes an issue. I would suspect that there are a lot more teenage admins than most people suspect---and that Friday has possibly supported some of them for adminship.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I meant, actually, by things being a bit chicken-and-egg. One could say that Wikipedia's success with (relative) anonymity can only exist because of the ideas of equality that had already gained traction before it. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the consequences of anonymity must be constrained by just the previous mainstream ideals of equality. (And now that I think of it, age equality was already a part of at least early geek culture anyway, according to Stephen Levy's Hackers.) A matter of opinion, as I mentioned before. —AySz88\^-^ 05:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You (Protonk) speak as if they were intentionally bringing up the issue and attempting to 'right the wrong' of ageism. Personally, I don't think this is a fair characterization; in my experience, I think it's reasonable to not be expecting such a reaction at all. As is already probably evident from the strength and number of objections, ageism is already considered a rather major faux pas by a number of people (admittedly, including myself, and probably mostly Gen-Y). —AySz88\^-^ 05:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And the opposite can be seen as well as is already probably evident from the strength and number of objections, ageism is already considered to be a justifiable reality by a number of people... probably mostly Gen-X and Baby Boomers---the people who have gone through their youth. Of course, when I was in HS/College, I thought it was unfair to be judged based on my age. The question becomes, what will Gen-Y'ers reaction be when it is their children who are the teenagers?---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 05:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, you're right, but I gave the wrong stat for what I was trying to argue (that one wouldn't expect to see ageism before giving it away already). :) The more relevant thing is the proportion of Wikipedians (of all generations) who would be of the pursuasion to give oppositions just on the basis of age. That appears to be pretty strongly on the side of not entering oppositions based on that, by a very large margin. (Or else, this RfA would be going much worse for Jamie than it is currently.) And that is enough of a margin that it's reasonable that someone would not have encountered ageism on Wikipedia before believing that it would be at least as innocuous as giving away race, location, gender, etc.. (Now I be off to sleep before I make another silly mistake somewhere...) —AySz88\^-^ 06:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I personally disagree with Friday's expressed views (which I've been aware of for a long time, as he/she would be aware of my views over a similar period), there is nothing bad faith there, and definitely not a personal attack. People are entitled to their views and I firmly believe Friday has expressed them for the sole purpose of improving the encyclopaedia. Essentially the argument is that with maturity comes increased ability. I believe however that maturity, not age, is the factor here and that a 35 year old who is chronically immature is inferior to even a 16 or 17 year old of average or not-far-above-average maturity. Someone who is younger and of unexceptional maturity for their age, that will show and we don't have to judge them on their age but on the actual evidence - impetuosity, unpredictability, handling criticism poorly, etc. Hence age should be irrelevant, although we do have expectations that need to be met and it may be more difficult for a younger person (especially 15 and younger) to meet those due to some of the issues Balloonman raised above. Orderinchaos 20:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The solution to the age delimna

Ok, this is a non-winable argument. The problem is that on the one hand we have those users who are in their teens/early twenties. They will ALWAYS think it is unfair that they are being judged because of their youth (It was that way when I was a teen, when my parents were teens, etc.) On the other hand, we have those users who, used to be teens/early twenties, who remember the stupid things they and their peers did. Who remember how mature they thought they were, but now realize how stupid they were in fact. This group will always have questions/doubts about the maturity of teensagers. This group has years of literature, scientific studies, actuarial studies, etc that shows that people in their teens/early twenties are more likely to do "immature" things. There are reasons why actuarial rates for teens and early 20's are different than for older people. There are reasons why we have terms such as "college prank" and "HS prank." There are reasons why crime is higher amoung these demographics. The only thing that teens have is the rallying cry of "It's not fair." (The same cry, BTW, that the 30+ year old used when they were younger and "less mature.") The 30+ year old will simply discount your rhetoric (probably without ever vocalizing it) by thinking, "This is just a teenager, give him 20+ years and let him grow up and we'll see what he says then." Right or wrong, these are the facts. The Gen-Y'ers can't change these facts regardless of how unjust they believe they are.

So what is the solution? Don't worry of the Friday's of the RfA process. If you are a teenager (and that is known on wikipedia) realize that you will garner some sutomatic opposes because of your youth. Don't fight it. By fighting it, you don't show your maturity, but you raise questions with others who might otherwise be willing to disregard your youth. Don't try to get people who are going to oppose because you are a teenager to change their mind, it will more likely force them to dig their heels in harder. It's a battle you can't win, and just might loose! It gives them a forum and it lets them convince others that you are in fact, too immature to be an admin. Instead, focus on everybody else, people such as myself. Realize that there are a lot of wikipedians out there who are concerned about HS'ers having the mop, but are willing to look at individuals on a case by case basis. Convince those people that you are the exception to the rule. Be such a strong candidate that when you do run, that the people who support you will be numerous enough to overcome those who do look at age. Don't try to use words to convince people that you deserve a chance, let your actions do the talking.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 14:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great advice. And, hey, I am one of the ones who is willing to look at individual cases. I've seen that there are a few exceptional youngsters here. I know they exist. I'm just not willing to believe everyone who comes along is one, just because their friends support them. Friday (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why wasn't this posted to WT:RFA? Synergy 14:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will cross post.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 14:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I'm only 23 and I find myself having doubts about candidates based on age. I clearly remember what I was like in my mid-teens, 23-year-old me certainly wouldn't have supported 14-year-old me for adminship! I do think it's unfair to generalise based on that to all teenagers, but I can't deny I consider it. ~ mazca t | c 14:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, how old were we when moki made us moderators? ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very well thought out example. However, some folks dont have an issue with the maturity question. Some (like me) are only worried about the legal implications. Qb | your 2 cents 14:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Balloonman has a point. As long as people know one's age, that editor will never be able to successfully fight the onslaught of age discrimination. Thus, I think we should create a guideline of sorts that advises not to reveal personal information such as age on userpages. I'm not sure what the limit would be—be it 16, 18—but we can't have this everytime a teenager requests adminship. And we know there are going to be more teenagers at RfA, probably within the next month even. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned that (having a guideline) once, Julian... and got flamed. Good luck if you wanna champion it. I cant have a problem with someone if they dont tell me their age. Its as simple as that. Qb | your 2 cents 19:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, in that case I'd be interested to see where you proposed that. It may not be such a good idea after all. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 139#Questions about age I made a comment in there somewhere... its outdented. Qb | your 2 cents 20:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solid response from candidate

If every admin could handle criticism or opposition as well as Jamie, Wikipedia would have a much more civil atmosphere. Not that poise is a perfect predictor of the future, but she is demonstrating some ability for grace under pressure. HG | Talk 04:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it amazing how people can argue how this individual is by nature immature when she handles criticism with such equanimity? Valtoras (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the only even remotely valid age-related argument is accountability, and even then, seldom has legal action ever caused by an administrative action. Valtoras (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Ageism like racism or sexism?

Yes. More like sexism, though, at least sex is a physical characteristic. Usually. Ageism is the belief, in this context, that the ability to perform a task is necessarily connected with age. Obviously, a baby isn't going to be able to handle the tools! That age is correlated with ability to perform a task (whether youth or advanced age), however, is little indication as to the ability of any particular individual to perform the task. We might make general predictions based on age. We might also make them based on gender, or even race, whatever race is (it isn't biological).

Wikipedia is designed to be fault-tolerant. We haven't implemented the design very well, though. Admins make lots of mistakes that are never seen, though, probably, the percentage of bad actions is low, and that's part of the problem. Nobody is watching, usually. If we were watching, we'd catch errors quickly, and *mature* administrators would learn from their mistakes and not make them again. Can a teenager be "mature"? Of course! Some younger than teenage years could do it, people's skill sets are different, and some children are very, very precocious, can be more "mature" than the average adult.

We should encourage teenage applicants, for the younger we can get them, the better they will be in the long run. It's like any skill. If a 50-year-old is offended at being "policed" by a teenager, *I'm* offended. And I'm 64. The age of an editor is irrelevant to editorial quality, and the age of an administrator is irrelevant to the propriety of the action. If age is the standard, then most people here should shut up and listen to me. I have learned something in my very active 64 years.

In fact, though, some wines improve with age, some turn into vinegar. You've got to taste the actual bottle to know.--

talk) 14:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

16 year old cant vote, or enter into a legal and binding contract in the US. What say you to that? Qb | your 2 cents 14:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do see your point about the potential legal problems Qb, but what are they specifically? What is a Wikipedia admin expected to do that requires adult legal status? I'm not suggesting you're wrong at all, I'm interested in the reasoning because it, well, sounds reasonable. ~ mazca t | c 14:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A quick reply to this one - this user has said BLP could be ignored under certain circumstances, yet the BLPs are the most risky area of the project. If an admin protected a libellous article, should not the person libelled be able to take action against the person who allowed said libel to be perpetuated for longer than it had to be? George The Dragon (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A 16 year old can happily vote on Wikipedia without issue. If they can vote, why can't they run? (Don't tell me... you're going to say they can't vote now either... whoops.) Majorly talk 15:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the voting subject, age is used in the real world by many, many voters to decide whether to back one candidate over another. Oh, and just to Majorly and as a total aside, until a couple of years ago in the UK, election candidates had to be 21, though the voting age was/is 18! George The Dragon (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There have been issues with bomb threats, death threats, and frauds, not to mention libel and copyright violations. All these things are generally dealt with by administrators. With this kind of potential of dealing with law enforcement, lawyers, the media, etc... it would be better, and easier, for all involved if the person making the complaint/notification/call on the red phone were of a legally accountable age. Thats what it comes down to for me. Also, if, on the off chance that an admin does go rogue and the shit really does start to hit the fan, the person who did it should be able to be legally held accountable. Qb | your 2 cents 15:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia requires no personal information to create an account. So if we were to limit administrators to those of legal age, then how are we to know how old editors are if they don't display it? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And there we have one of the key questions facing the future of the project if it wants to retain BLPs. Fully open editing may be a good way to start an encyclopedia, but perhaps not the best way to finish one George The Dragon (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surley any Candidate that gets the Sysop from the community would have the common sense to know when their age should prevent them from getting into disputes that can have legal effects.--KojiDude (C) 15:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I used to think I could get away with all sorts of crap at 20... or hell, even now! Common sense often yields to pride and the belief that one can "handle it". Qb | your 2 cents 15:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To George The Dragon: I don't know that there would be a way to make such a substantial change within the foundation. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and to have to disclose personal information such as age would eliminate that. Also, I agree with Kojidude to some extent, that an administrator should be able to determine his/her legal abilities. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<out> To say ageism is like racism would quite frankly be insulting!

talk) 15:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Yeah, that's what they said about sexism. After all, aren't the sexes actually different? No personal insult intended, but insult to arguments that are a "steaming pile" is fully intentional. --
talk) 15:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

(ec) In some countries there are legal requirements based on age, on sex, on religion, etc. We have no such requirements. If there is to be a requirement that admins be of a certain age, we should debate and establish it. And require proof of age. I don't think it would fly. Admins here do not enter into a binding contract with Wikipedia. Really, there are enough red herrings here to feed a whole troop of walruses. Lack of experience is a legitimate reason to oppose. Lack of maturity, likewise (i.e., does the editor argue tendentiously? does the editor know when enough is enough? Hmmmm.... how many of us are not good at that?). But age, that's pure prejudice. --

talk) 15:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Ageism, sexism, and racism are alike in the sense that they are all ways of treating people differently for what they can't control about themselves. Which one is the worst is opinion, but essentially they're the same thing.--KojiDude (C) 15:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Racism has caused many wars, loads of suffering and lots and lots of death and destruction. Ageism is stopping a good kid from becoming a wikipedia sysop. Bit of a difference eh!?
talk) 15:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
(edit conflict) Well, ageism also prevents me from renting a car or running for the U.S. presidency. Interestingly enough, I can vote in the US elections, but I can't run in them. I don't find that analogous to Wikipedia voting/running, and I don't have a problem with a 13-year-old's RFA as long as they have demonstrated maturity and good judgement. I do not feel ageism is anywhere near the lines of racism or sexism, however, I can understand an RFA voter saying something like: "Sorry, too young", but if I saw an established and respected user with a vote like, "Sorry, too [insert race here]", I would be stunned beyond belief. Useight (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The nice thing about being too young, is that you will eventually grow out of it... it's a state that everybody who isn't young has been in before. So trust me, we understand the frustrations some feel, we complained about them as well. But the fact remains, it will always be a concern---and those who are teenagers today will hear it from teenagers in 20+ years.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 19:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Racism is taken more seriousley by Humans, but it's still the same idea as ageism; they're both stereotyping and prejudice.--KojiDude (C) 15:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Well I guess different people from different walks of life will have different opinions about things. I've never been a victim of any of the three, so I guess i'm not the best person to comment. I really hope this RfA passes, because Jamie is far more mature than a few of the sysops on this project at the moment. Good day and happy editing to all...
talk) 16:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I strongly disagree with equating in any way discrimination against teenagers with racism. Nobody burns crosses on the lawns of their teenagers because they are teenagers, or lynches them, or drags them behind pickup trucks because they are teenagers. Thinking that teenagers are not ready for the full responsibility of adults is not hate. People do not categorically hate teenagers. Racism is hatred of other people because of the color of their skin. Denying a man a good job that can feed his family and give his children opportunity because of the color of his skin is a tragedy. Not letting someone drive trucks on the job until they are eighteen may be frustrating but is not a tragedy. The oppose votes against JamieS93 based on age are not a tragedy. I disagree with discriminating against teenagers on Wikipedia, I have supported the RfAs of young people that I thought could do the job (I'm still neutral on this RfA), but this analogy revolts me. Which one is the worst is opinion, KojiDude? Do we truly live in that post-racial a society that this can be advanced as a serious position? Darkspots (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This idea that racism is hatred is responsible for a great deal of misunderstanding about it. I see that our article,
talk) 23:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I think Erik the Red 2's comparison to Godwin's law, above, is incredibly apt. I feel exactly about this the way children of survivors feel about the Holocaust. Don't trivialize real human suffering to make a minor point in a debate in an internet forum. And you can be as academic about it as you like, but racism is motivated by hatred/fear of the Other. Ageism is motivated by perceptions, accurate or inaccurate as they may be, about humans at a certain age based on our own recollections of ourselves and our peers at that age, as Balloonman points out. We don't see teenagers as the Other, we see them as people that we shouldn't give handguns to (what was my high school buddy's father thinking??) Darkspots (talk) 02:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I want to give handguns to anyone except the police, and the required education for that would probably rule out teenagers. I have a racist friend (yes, it's not an oxymoron) whose racism is based on his "recollections," his experiences growing up in a difficult environment. And his racism leads him to make some very bad judgments. Noting that racism, sexism, and ageism, as well as classism and so forth, are all examples of generalizing from a class to the individual, while actually facing the individual, doesn't trivialize suffering. No claim has been made that, say, ageism or sexism are as deeply damaging as racism, or, for that matter, tribalism or nationalism, but that they are examples of the same error. Generalizations are necessary for snap judgments. But that's only useful in an emergency, under other conditions they are harmful, leading us to make bad decisions. They lead us to make bad decisions, quite often, in emergencies as well, but that's the breaks. If the generalization is reasonably accurate, it will usually allow us to make a very quick decision that might save a life. Sometimes, as well, the difficulty of making individual decisions, for reasons of efficiency, causes us to set, for example, minimum driving age or age of consent or many other examples. But an RfA is a individual decision. And age isn't a specific impediment. Suppose a job requires heavy lifting. Should an employer be required, if subject to equal employment opportunity laws, to give individual consideration to an application for employment by a woman, on the grounds that most women couldn't handle the job requirements? If so -- which is the law in the U.S., I think -- then why would we think that we shouldn't give individual consideration to a young nominee? And that is all that is being suggested: that this young nominee be given due consideration based on her actual qualifications. And age is not a stated qualification, nor should it be one. Nor, I believe, would such a qualification find consensus. But if editors really believe what they've written here, they should attempt it, since otherwise we will get nominations that are going to be shot down simply because of age, not only wasting time, but possibly harming the project. I can tell you that I'd have been offended to be turned down simply because of my age. For my lack of experience, no. Not at any age! A 16-year-old could have more real experience than I, and, guess what? On average, they will learn faster than I. It's not ageist for me to note that! --
talk) 03:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah. You and I think racism is the worst, Jim down the street might feel sexism is the worst. Regardless of what happens/happened because of them, they are all the same thing by definition. Racism, Ageism, and Sexism are all ways of discriminating (or "hating" as you put it :-) ) people for their physical traits.--KojiDude (C) 16:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure we all agree that racism is the worst; however, the first sentence of the Ageism article states, Ageism is stereotyping and prejudice against individuals or groups because of their age. That seems, while not as "wrong", just as discriminatory as racism and sexism. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is, racism is always wrong. A certain amount of ageism is just reasonable. You don't let a 6 year old drive, you don't sign a 50 year old to a long term athletic contract. So question isn't is ageism wrong. It's what is reasonable in regards to wiki admins. (Not judging the specifics, my oppose is for non age reasons.)--Cube lurker (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's how I see it- racism is not rational. Recognizing that kids tend to act like kids is rational. Friday (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So it would be reasonable for me to oppose an RfA candidate because s/he's too old? They might die whilst in the middle of a dispute. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Cough! Cough! I'm at an age (actually beyond it) where men start dropping unexpectedly, it's already happened to one of my best friends from high school.)--
talk) 22:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

(For what it's worth, I think some of the arguments against ageism are poorly formulated and, if seen as immature, could backfire on adults' perceptions of the question at hand. I'd recommend letting it rest.) HG | Talk 17:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of problems with your analogy. First, in virtually every culture in virtually every age, the elderly have been revered for their wisdom and knowledge... the youth not so much. Second, even if that weren't the case, the AARP is the most powerful lobbiest group on earth! ;-) ---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 02:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AMEN! It's a battle that the anti-ageist can't win for the reasons I outlined above. People will ALWAYS have concerns about teenagers/maturity. The key is to show why a specific candidate is the exception.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 19:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd really like to see this discussion take place in an environment where we might actually come to some conclusion. But, barging ahead, the average ninety-year old wouldn't be able to handle being an administrator. But it would be a tad rude to revoke adminiship on that basis, as long as harm wasn't being done. And if harm is being done, adminiship should be revoked regardless of age. Age is, as I said, a red herring. The average person from my daughter's ethnic group would make a terrible administrator here. Unless he or she had learned the language and the local customs and Wikipedia policies. If he or she did that, sufficiently, and showed us that, it would be offensive to reject the person because of their ethnic group's "average." And exactly the same is true for age. The average person at age X wouldn't make a good administrator. For two ranges of ages, at the low end and at the high end, it's undoubtedly true. But that represents averages, not individuals. At what age could a person possibly handle, as well as the average admin, administrative tasks? I wouldn't want to set any specific age, but I'm pretty sure that individuals exist who could handle it before they are teenagers. Probably rare. Or not, really, it would depend on what kind of support the community gave them. Should a very young admin candidate show extraordinary readiness? And that requirement, which some have voiced, is, precisely, ageism. Setting a special requirement for someone because of their age, not necessary from the age itself, nor from their individual physical or mental or emotional condition.
My youngest daughter is from Ethiopia, and she's from the southern part of the country, where skin tends to be darker than in the north or east, she has what are often considered other "African" physical traits. There, she's identifiable as a member of her tribe, but, here, she's readily lumped into "Black." She had some (quite understandable, given her history) behavioral problems at her preschool. It was a preschool associated with a university, very sophisticated, and they had welcomed her. But when she had problems, very mysteriously, the administration ordered that she not be at the school unless accompanied by a parent at all times (which was totally impractical). Now, her mother had worked at this school, she knew their policies, which required that, in a situation like this, an expert be retained (by the school). They didn't do that with her. We hired a therapist, the best specialist we could find. The therapist advised the school that it was harming the child to remove her from the environment, and that there were no problems that were drastically out of the norm. The school refused. Why? My wife had seen a boy, when she worked there, with worse behavior problems, and the school handled it, they put some extra staff on the kid for a while.
The school never explained why. But we knew. The boy had been white, our daughter is black, and, you know, we aren't racist, and we welcome children of all races. As long as they behave, and we can't take on severe behavioral problems unless we are confident they can be resolved, and, well, you know, we've had black kids here before with behavioral problems and we couldn't help them. So, we're very sorry and we'll miss her, she's such a beautiful child, but we have to think of the school.
We could have fought it, but concluded we didn't want our daughter in that environment. We put her in a local Montessori school, and she did spectacularly well. No problems beyond the norm for her age. She was truly loved there.
People are individuals, and deserve to be treated as such. I understand that sometimes we need to rely on "markers." It's part of how we think. But ... it's also pernicious, and should be avoided wherever and whenever possible. I see absolutely no reason to make age a factor in considering qualification for adminship, and, as noted, we don't actually know the ages of editors. Maybe JamieS93 is actually 60 and pulling our chain. Or 12. And we shouldn't care. (Except that I'd not be thrilled by the deception, a separate issue.) Are we going to start asking nominees to disclose their age? If the age arguments were proper, here, then certainly we should ask that question! Nobody asked me how old I was in my two RfAs. All they really discussed, beyond some flap with an SPA canvassing to shoot me down, second time around, was how many edits I had. A few hundred, the first, as I recall, snowed out quickly -- by the way, I did not nominate myself, didn't ask for it, but consider myself obligated to accept invitations to serve, I didn't, and don't, want to be an admin. 1400 the second, which went about 50-50 in spite of the low contribs. JamieS93, currently you are doing better than that, 63:37 at this moment, which isn't enough to pass, normally (though bureaucrats are theoretically free to decide however they think best), but better than me. Of course, you have more edits than I did. Note that some Opposition is coming from editors who are saying, come back in a few months, I'll support. (That's what I was told, by many editors, come back with more edits, I'll change my vote. Don't worry, folks, I won't hold you to that if I'm ever nominated again! Y'all know me better now!) Regardless, Jamie, you have my congratulations for the work you have done so far, and if Wikipedia doesn't accept you as an admin, it would be Wikipedia's loss, not yours. Having the admin tools doesn't really help that much in building the project, as I'm sure you know. For some, it seems, even, to be a hindrance. If I need a page protected, I can ask for it, and, so far, no refusals. I'd also like to see the community supporting admins with clerk positions, but I won't go into that here.... but it would be ideal training to be an admin, and would have other advantages as well. All voluntary, but recognized. --
talk) 22:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
tl;dr, but I bet you get that a lot.
T 03:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, for many years. And I also get emails and other comments thanking me. To each his own. YMMV. Take what you like and leave the rest. As I wrote to Steve Crossin the other day, on my Talk, don't read my writing if it gives you a headache.
Avruch, maybe you could consult the sage Abd and get a delegatable proxy to read his self-aggrandising monologues on your behalf? :p Minkythecat (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incivility to Abd doesn't feel necessary here. Darkspots (talk) 01:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't take Avruch's comment as uncivil at all, it was reasonable, though a tad unnecessary. Minkythecat seems to be on a roll, though. Anyway, there is an actual issue here, and what I wrote was, in fact, relevant to it, though certainly not concise. Should we recommend that bureaucrats discount !votes based purely on age, or setting higher requirements for young admin nominees than for older ones, the same as might be done with !votes based on race, gender, sexual orientation, outside politics, or other irrelevancies? It could make a difference in this RfA. At this point, if we count all the !votes, approval is running at 63%, but if we discount the 11 !votes (at this point, my count) that state or refer to comment about age as a major obstacle, it would be at 70%, the low end that might be considered passing by a 'crat. Personally, I'd be in favor of making it easier to become an admin, but also making it much easier to have the rights suspended, if not removed. --
talk) 02:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you for the condensed version. Bureaucrats should not discount votes based purely on age, in my opinion, for many of the reasons discussed on WT:RFA.
T 13:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Much of what I wrote above was to establish credentials to write about racism, in particular. While I'm "white" -- Scotch/Irish ancestry mostly -- I'm also Muslim and served a mostly African-ancestry population as a chaplain at
talk) 03:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I specified in my edit summary that my comment was only directed at Minky. Darkspots (talk) 03:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Age has not been the major factor in this RfA

From what I can tell about 8 oppose !votes have been made with age as a predominant factor. At least 1 countervailing support. Otherwise, the discussion does seem to center on many other substantive aspects of the candidate's qualifications, answers, editing experience, etc. For this reason, although the age-related votes have sparked much controversy here, age does not seem to be the primary issue driving the discussion of the candidacy. Thanks. HG | Talk 10:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While it's difficult to be certain (because someone may actually oppose based on age, but state a different reason), yesterday I counted 11 opposes based directly or indirectly on age as an "important' factor. For example, the oppose may have cited "per so-and-so," where the other user cited age. Or the user may have indicated that they had higher standards for users of lower age, which is still age discrimination. Yes, age has not been the major factor, but roughly one-fourth of opposes have been explicitly, as described, about age. Nevertheless, if !voters have been sincere, it seems that in a few months, if activity continues and experience is gained, the nominee is likely to pass (if not this time). The major factor is lack of sufficient experience, which is not age discrimination, though, obviously, it can be associated with age. Many !voters who opposed based on age seemed to assume that age would directly imply lack of experience or maturity. Maturity, again, would be associated with age, but not proven by it, either way. Quite simply, we don't ask that users disclose their age.
In the nether regions, where we are considering blocking or banning a user, sometimes we consider age as a mitigating factor; this is reasonable, to a degree, because if a problem is related to lack of maturity or experience, we can expect that it may dissipate with time, on average. However, we would never, properly, allow a user to continue to damage the project merely because the user is young. Or old, for that matter.
Note that the Wikimedia Foundation states in its non-discrimination policy, "The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics." My conclusion is that citing age (as distinct from equally-applied experience standards or judgment of actual behavior) as a reason for opposition to an administrative candidate violates Wikimedia Foundation policy. While this does not bind users as to their opinions, obviously, the same is true of any other policy, hence my recommendation that the closing 'crat disregard votes based on age, just as they likely would disregard votes based on other forms of prejudice not related to actual performance of task. --
talk) 12:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
And perhaps I should quote the preface to the NDP: The content of this page is an official policy approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. This policy may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects. --
talk) 13:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh, thanks for helping refine the data.
Please. The WMF policy is written in the context of the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act
of 1967 (ADEA) and similar laws. Rightly or wrongly, this law has nothing to do with the civil rights of people under 40 yrs old. On the contrary, U.S. law clearly allows age to be taken into account in voting, employment, drinking and other activities of teenagers.
HG is correct. "Age" in the ADEA refers to discrimination against those over 40, and I'd consider it reasonable, then, to interpret the language in the WMF statement to refer to similar. However, we do not, in any way that's been enshrined in policy, discriminate against young users other than in connection with specific necessity. I.e., I've seen a user page shut deleted because it contained personal information about an underage editor; but this is related to legal privacy issues around the age status of the user. (And a remedy, if it were considered that adminship presented some specific hazard in this, would be a requirement of parental permission.) In spite of what some have asserted, I'm unaware of any disability that a young user would face by virtue of age, only by virtue of lack of experience, and since it is possible for a 14-year old, for example, to have more experience editing the project, to know more about policy and practice, and be able to implement them, than someone much older, we properly look to evidence of experience, not of age, and I've never even seen the question asked, "How old are you?" If we really believe the arguments about legal incapacity that have been presented, then we should definitely ask that question!
Having said this, if two users were equal in experience, showing similar ability to handle administrative tasks, and I were to then discover that one was, say, 14 years old and the other was 64, I would approve of both, generally, or deny both, except that I might prefer, somewhat, the younger one. Because this editor will almost certainly become a better one, more rapidly, and the older one, less likely. That's my age, by the way. Not 14! We set specific age limits for driver's licenses and the like because administering a system that would consider the matter individually would be too complex and difficult, and the harm from not allowing younger, but responsible and capable drivers, to have licenses is transient and probably not sufficient to be worth facing the difficulty. (It would be *expensive*). But with adminship, we already consider the nominees individually, often with no knowledge of age. Hence my conclusion that the mention of age in this RfA was pernicious, revealing prejudices about age that are quite the kind we should disregard. For example, a !vote stated, "Kid admins have generally poor judgement, and bring the project into disrepute." I've seen no evidence at all that younger administrators have poorer judgment than older ones, given equal experience as administrators, and the "disrepute" that is, indeed, a problem with the project, is more about how our structure functions, or doesn't function, than the age of the admins, most of whom are certainly legally adults. And I've seen quite a few admins, known to be much older, showing spectacularly poor judgment. --
talk) 19:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
We can't know that, we can only know who mentioned it. It's probably pretty likely that a great many voters (well, the adults, anyway) considered age as a factor, whether they mentioned it or not. Friday (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a number of Oppose voters specifically stated that their vote wasn't based on age, and, as I mentioned, quite a few said that in a few months, or the like, they'd change their votes. So, clearly, those Oppose voters didn't base it on age. I have a feeling that most Oppose voters didn't consider age a factor, that most who did stated it, but, that's just a feeling. Sandy Georgia didn't address age, and so voters who "me-too'd" her !vote, could be considered to be not based on age. Friday did base his Oppose on age, and so !voters who referred to Friday can be considered in the age camp. One !voter referred to both Sandy Georgia and Friday, and, because, then, age was a factor, I included that !vote, as well, as ageist. --
talk) 19:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Since I think age matters, I thought I might reply. One can discriminate based on age. For example, in almost every state in the USA, one must be at least 16 years old to drive. Even then, many states have restrictions. In all 50 US states, those under 21 cannot buy alcohol. Those under 18 can't vote. One must be 25 to run for the US House of Representatives. 30 for the Senate. 35 for the President. And it goes on. Does age indicate maturity? Absent a psychiatric evaluation, it can be assumed that someone at that age is lacking the maturity to deal with issues that require maturity. Can I discriminate? Damn straight I can. When I hire employees, they must have a bachelor level degree from an accredited university. I therefore discriminate on age and education (and I don't accept online degrees in hiring). So, I think this argument is absurd, because I have a legal right to discriminate based on too young, it is not ageism and it is not technically discrimination, it is a minimum qualification. Since I don't have an employer-employee relationship with RfA candidates, I can choose to vote oppose on any obnoxious reason, including the famous "self-nomination yada yada yada". Age, maturity and experience matter here to build an encyclopedia. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encouraging Lies

To those who seem to want to base this vote on age, I must ask if they're really comfortable basing decisions not on work done on Wikipedia, but rather information that is submitted voluntarily. If Jamie had put on her userpage that she was 19 - would that have really switched so many of the opposes to supports? There is no policy that dictates that users must be of a certain age to be granted adminship, and it is unfair for these users to superimpose one, which is essentially what everyone is doing; they are taking this faux-requirement and declaring it to be of dominant importance - declaring that it outweighs her contribs. Does this kind of reaction really better Wikipedia? Or does it only convince otherwise outstanding editors to lie on their userpage?--

folsom 05:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note - minor reword--
folsom 20:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
(I agree.) Just to make it clear, less than one-fourth of the Oppose voters have indicated age as a negative factor. If we discount all those votes, last time I checked, Support was hovering around 70%, at the low end of what is considered adequate. There may be, however, additional Oppose votes that were really based on age, but differently stated. Were I a 'crat, I'd see that the community had given me a basis to either pass or fail, and I'd make my own independent assessment. I might consider the fact that many oppose voters stated they'd like approve in a short time, short enough that were age a factor, it would still be a factor; the least disruptive action would probably be, based on the last tally I checked, to fail, with an encouraging remark. And, unless the candidate catches foot-in-mouth disease, next RfA will pass handily, and by then, perhaps we'll have a guideline or policy about voting in these based on age. It looks to me like a strong majority dislikes the idea of this. --
talk) 17:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry, such a ban won't fly. Too many people see it as a valuable piece of information either directly or indirectly. You won't be able to convince enough people that the body of scientific knowledge, crime reports, sociological studies, laws, etc that demonstrate that young people are (on a whole) less mature than older people should be discarded. There have been other reasons to oppose that people think shouldn't be allowed, but every attempt to "ban" a reason has been rejected.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 17:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knock it off

You guys are eating my watchlist alive. It is pretty clear that no side is going to convince the other and all this has done so far is harm the community; one AN thread, one RFC, one RFCU (which caused one editor to retire) so far.

Go write a FA or something. - Icewedge (talk) 05:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I basically said the same thing a while ago... it is an argument that can't be won... time is better spent elsewhere and showing that a specfic candidate shouldn't be judged based on youth.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 05:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You would think this was
WP:DRAMA. ;) Alexfusco5 14:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Try taking the page off your watchlist, if you aren't interested in current activity on it! I started using the option that gives me one line per page edited (not one line per edit) with edit history then popping up with the mouse hovers over the link for it. So I can now have the noticeboards on my Watchlist! Of course, I have to allow many more edits, but with the page-unified display, it's much better.

Meanwhile, to the point, this candidate seems marginally adequate to pass, if not for age, we'd probably be looking at the low end for passing, if that. We can presume, reasonably, that the 2/3 of editors who supported don't consider age an issue. Of the 1/3 oppose !votes, about a fourth of them can be seen to have considered age as a negative, quite a few others explicitly discounted it. From what I see here, there is clearly a rough consensus that age is not and should not be a factor, I'd roughly guess that a poll would run about five to one that age should not be a factor. To avoid disruption in the future, then, I'd recommend work on the RfA guidelines. Just as we'd be offended if someone used ethnic identity alone as a factor ("Editor is Armenian, and therefore may not be able to make unbiased decisions regarding Turkish issues." -- without any showing of actual bias from edit history), we would treat raising age as an issue in an RfA as disruptive. Possibly we'd refactor it, as we would with other disruption.) --

talk) 17:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Nope. Different thing entirely. And remember, in both my support and oppose, I'm one of those people who said that age wasn't an issue.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 17:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, those who are vehemently objecting to age as a consideration seem to mostly be adolescents. I don't consider this opinion to be unbiased or well-reasoned. The strength of arguments is intended to be significant, here. Friday (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Friday, do you have any evidence to support your contention? It is a rather
dismissive claim and it could reflect poorly on you. Have you noticed the various !votes where, either in oppose or support here (or WT:RFA), people say it shouldn't be based on age? How do you know that most are adolescents? HG | Talk 18:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
It's my best guess, based on (in some cases) admitted ages, and (in other cases) how they seem to me. Note that some people have given reasonable arguments suggesting that we tread carefully when using age as a consideration. But, some people have just given child-like emotional reactions- these the not-well-reasoned opinions I speak of. Friday (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/JamieS93&oldid=1090635773"