Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Thine Antique Pen

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

Discussion on Eric Corbett's oppose[edit]

Closed by the order of the civility police. This discussion has no potential beneficiaries, except for trolls.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note: Per an Arbitration decision, Eric Corbett (talk · contribs) is not allowed to participate in actual RfA discussion (only voting), so he is unable to reply. Esquivalience t 20:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I will not ask how old the candidate is, I will simply say that I believe that schoolchildren should be focusing on their schoolwork, not wasting their time as administrators here. Eric Corbett 17:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence led you to the conclusion that Thine Antique Pen is in school? clpo13(talk) 17:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you this candidate's parent or guardian, Eric? If not, why would you take it upon yourself to dictate how the candidate spends his time? I am certain he does not need your help to manage his time, and adminning certainly doesn't take up more time than content writing. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Eric can't comment further, folks, he can vote but not engage. Old story. Montanabw(talk) 17:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That seems counterintuitive. Shouldn't voters be able to defend or clarify their position when asked? clpo13(talk) 17:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it. I'm confident the crats will ignore this "oppose", as it deserves. --MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Eric is banned from doing so. It's notated here (under his prior username, Malleus Fatuorum). Epic Genius (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Eric's comment is more likely to be an WP:OUTING. But again, I'm pretty confident that no admin will dare to warn or take action against Eric. Jim Carter 18:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Eric is allowed, like any other editor, to state his opinion on a candidate and you should respect his views. Frankly as a parent I make a point of getting my kids away from the computer every day for a time so they aren't socially isolated, so I see where he's coming from. Now drop it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that we've had a 13 year old Bureaucrat before, much less a 15 year old Admin. Apparently worked out fine. Some people are more mature at 15 than others are at 51. --GRuban (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, what do you know? Turns out this has happened before. Now will I be the next editor to be criticized, because I'm 17? Epic Genius (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Epicgenius, not until you do something daft like running for Admiship with 116,000 edits under your belt. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is not allowed on Wikipedia, Eric. You cannot ask personal questions of other users. All of us have the right to remain anonymous. Also isn't he banned, it says here. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 09:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He is allowed to !vote, just not to engage in threaded discussion. And he didn't ask a personal question; he said "I will not ask ..." --Stfg (talk) 09:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does the Arbcom decision applies only to RfA pages? If people want to ask Eric to explain further the reasoning behind his vote, can't they simply go and ask him on his own Talk Page? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He is topic banned from making edits concerning the RFA process anywhere on the English Wikipedia. He's made his vote, this discussion needs to end, it's unfair on both him and the candidate to carry on further WormTT(talk) 12:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion on Andrew D.'s oppose[edit]

Before chaos ensues from this !vote. Esquivalience t 02:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  1. Oppose I check the candidate's contributions for April and find he only made 5 edits. I check May and find he didn't make any edits at all. I check June and find a big splurge of automated/mechanical edits. Judging by the topics – easy, rote stuff like beetle species – I get the impression that he's still hat collecting – just going through the motions to level-up. Andrew D. (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've checked your contributions to RfA (and those as Colonel Warden) over the years and find that of your over 100 votes you oppose over 75% of the time, and that you are only correct about 44% of the time. Just na observation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a prediction game, Kudpung. Samsara 00:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    TBH, I thought he opposed all of the time. clpo13(talk) 00:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for actually agreeing with me, Samsara. It's partly about having genuine reasons for participating on an RfA based on actual research of the candidate and reaching a fairly equitable conclusion rather than on obscure impressions, lookig into a crystal ball, or throwing a dice that has 'oppose' stamped on 4 of its 6 sides. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not roll dice or use a crystal ball. Kudpung's more serious criticism is based on a concept of correctness which seems debatable. For example, I supported the recent RFA candidate Montanabw. That position was the most popular one (128/86/13) but she failed to attract enough support to pass. Was this a "correct" !vote or not? In other cases, such as Wifione, my opposition was a minority view but was subsequently vindicated when the person was subsequently banned. Was this a "correct" !vote or not? My view is that we should avoid groupthink and so dissent should be encouraged. Andrew D. (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    we should avoid groupthink and so dissent should be encouraged. Amen to that. Samsara 13:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to agree that dissenting opinions should be encouraged and sought. I've never been persuaded by RfA opposition citing a lower-than-average percentage of "correct" AfD votes, for instance, and it seems similarly unfair to criticize an RfA voter for high oppose rates/low accuracy rates. I'm all in favor of calling out frivolous votes and rote oppose rationales, or whatever the case may be, but numbers themselves are rarely of any good use. – Juliancolton | Talk 13:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Julian, a below-average understanding of our notability and deletion guidelines is a perfectly valid reason to oppose an RfA candidate, especially if the candidate proposes to work in closing AfDs and other XfDs. These are core WP guidelines for any admin. I would also suggest that deletionist/inclusionist tendencies that are significantly outside mainstream opinion also signal potential trouble for an admin. That said, I have reviewed TAP's AfD contributions and!votes and they are well within the range of acceptable understanding and mainstream opinion. He started within an okay understanding of the basics and has demonstrated growth in sophistication over time; I would trust him to close all but a few AfDs, and he will learn from experience as most do. I see no evidence of him having only voted in easy cases, he's made a few mistakes, and seems to learn from them. To my way of thinking, that's all we can ask. As for RfA participation, it is far more subjective than AfDs, which should be based mostly on the guidelines. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    At the risk of getting too far off-topic... notability and deletions policies (and indeed guidelines) are all open to interpretation, which is why we have deletion discussions in the first place. There's an entire gulf between not understanding policy and taking an unconventional view of policy in a low-stakes environment like a week(s)-long debate. More often than not, dissidence enriches the discussion and yields a more meaningful decision, even if failing to change the outcome; an AfD populated by half a dozen "*'''Delete''', fails [[WP:N]]." votes is only marginally more worthwhile than one with no participation whatsoever. If a prospective admin is shown to have a deficient understanding of inclusion/deletion standards, that's all the reason we need to delay their promotion, but I don't believe that can be demonstrated with statistics. – Juliancolton | Talk 14:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC) Follow-up to this tangent on Julian's user talk page, because we are cluttering TAP's RfA. In summary, TAP's AfD stats are good, and closer scrutiny of his AfD participation shows him to have a good understanding of the guidelines, and not merely racking up "me too" !votes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Without wanting to "badger" the opposes, can I just address the low edit counts? I believe that Thine Antique Pen is willing to take a break when his real life workload increases and the maturity to know when real life is more important and when to stop focussing on Wikipedia makes him more mature than the vast majority of editors. It is that maturity that makes it absolutely crystal clear to me that his age should not be taken as a factor. Finally, I'm unsure how you can say that someone with ~60k edits and multiple good articles is "going through the motions" WormTT(talk) 07:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Myself, I have worked on an eclectic variety of topics. The candidate seems to have focussed on species articles which seem quite formulaic. Perhaps this is related to his participation in the WikiCup? Anyway, this narrow approach seems too mechanical and so does not convince me that the candidate has the range of experience and knowledge which I expect of an admin. If he has long breaks due to other demands then this seems contrary to the requirement that admins be accountable and so readily available. If the candidate is as young as suggested here then they will have a long life ahead of them. There will be plenty of time to be an admin for years when they are more experienced and settled. Andrew D. (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We're all impressed by your DYK history, yes. – Juliancolton | Talk 13:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Since his age has been discussed at length, I would venture to say that at 15, he quite sensibly focused on exams, projects and papers at school in April/May. By sometime in June, the worst would have been over and he could return to his Wikipedia duties, which he seems to take quite seriously. Rhondamerrick (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The candidate's absences seem more protracted. I looked at a full history and found that, in 2014, he was only really active for four months. Andrew D. (talk) 16:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "I've checked your contributions to RfA... and find that you are only correct about 44% of the time. Just na observation." - Kudpung. That statement demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the RfA process. Just an observation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a fundamental inability to get anywhere close to realistically assessing a candidate in order to make a constructive, objective vote. It's the kind of participation that puts people off from wanting to run. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I seem to have called this one correctly. Andrew D. (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question re. Carrite's oppose[edit]

I'm somewhat confused by Carrite's oppose rationale. He specifically cites this edit as a cause for concern, alleging that it is an example of the candidate misrepresenting sources. When I reviewed the link, there didn't seem to be anything objectionable about it. From what I can tell, the "Phillips2013" citation adequately verifies every tidbit of information to which it is applied. I do not have access to the "Jordan2004" reference's source material (it redirects to the book's main Google page), which compromises my ability to determine the potentially problematic nature of TAP's edit. This was one of the sources that Sasata cited as being misrepresented back in the article's ill-fated 2012 DYK nomination. Kurtis (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I took a close look at that too and could not understand exactly what Carrite meant. My impression was that the issue was whether it was edible or not. Phillips says "Not edible possibly poisonous" and so the update in this case seems reasonable. Andrew D. (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template:Did you know nominations/Amanita eliae may clarify things. Please note the date - this is from 2012 so the issues raised in here shouldn't carry much weight for most RfA participants. Unfortunately, the nominee didn't completely clean up the problematic refrernces before he moved the article (back) into mainspace. That oversight (or evidence of poor judgement of timing, depending on how you choose to see it) is one of the factors that dropped me to merely "weak" support. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Rhondamerrick's comment[edit]

Perhaps, it would be wise to consider adding a minimum age requirement for future applicants. I think this discussion may be venturing into dangerous safeguarding issues with regards to dealing with minors and may end up reflecting very badly on the project. As a mother of 4 children, I would not be comfortable with having my under-age child communicating with total strangers on the Internet. I would not be happy to have my child publicly ridiculed and bullied by a group of people who are in general far older and should know better than to be openly unkind and publicly hostile to anyone. I would not be happy to expose my child to the dangers of sexual and emotional predators that may be lurking among us. Wikipedia is basically, a very large interactive chat-room with frequent bouts of open hostility among its participants. All I'm saying, is this could all go terribly wrong and regardless of your personal opinion on whether or not this applicant should move forward now or in a few years time, in this particular discussion, it would be wise to move forward with care and a bit of tact. Rhondamerrick (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhondamerrick A minimum voting age would imply a forced violation of user privacy. Everyone here is entitled to anonymity to a degree of their choosing; disclosure of age is up to the user. While I understand your concerns here, it's not our place to "parent" other people (i.e. impose restrictions on users over concerns of being "bullied"). It's only happenstance that we're aware of the candidate's age; had WP:PRIVACY been upheld, we likely would not know such information. Further talk on this discussion is best made at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, though, as it is probably tangential to this RfA. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree that it is not our place to restrict other users "for their own good". Also agree that we should not be having this conversation. I can never remember an RfA where the person's age was an issue, and it shouldn't have been an issue here. The (alleged) age was not self-revealed by the applicant; it was blurted out by oppose !voters. We should have been evaluating this candidate as we do all other candidates, whose age we can't tell; they could be 12 or 30 or 80. (My favorite comments at this RfA have been from respected administrators revealing that they were much younger than this applicant when they passed RfA.) But now that this has been raised, we have all these age-based opposes; currently 12 of the 30 opposes are based primarily or entirely on "too young". The comments range from the patronizing ("schoolchildren should be focusing on their schoolwork") to the pseudo-clinical ("children's brains aren't fully formed") to the ridiculously speculative ("A childish editor might easily get into an edit war with a well-respected fellow admin, and end up blocking him on a whim. After a lengthy drama-fest at Arbcom, he might get stripped of his admin tools, and become an embittered non-contributing snipe") to the self-contradictory ("Any administrator must be at least 18 years old which is considered enough mature to handle such a demanding task. I know the RfA doesn't impose any age restrictions.") I do hope the 'crats take into account that this is an issue that under normal circumstances would never have been raised. --MelanieN (talk) 08:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly right (and IMO, these comments are just speculation; we don't know what the user would do if he was 30 or 80. Why are we making baseless predictions?) I hope bureaucrats take a second look at all the age-based oppose !votes.Epic Genius (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, there's plenty of literature underpinning the particular unpredictability of adolescent personal development over a very short period. Everyone changes through life, but, as the literature tells us, the development from being a 15 year old is on an entirely different scale in terms of rapidity. A 15 year old can not be judged on the same basis - hence, for example, in the UK's criminal system at least, a 15 year old given a custodial sentence cannot be subject to the same sort of minimum tariff as an adult specificallt for that very reason. The degree of potential change is too great to make any assumptions as to future behaviour. In the context here, the degrees of unpredictability are similarly too great. Secondly, it's irrelevant that not all candidates ages are known. There may be many aspects of a candidate's character that are unknown but which if they were known would disqualify them. That doesn't mean that they should be ignored when they are known just because they are not knowable in all cases. DeCausa (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure age is "an aspect of character", but what comparable aspects do you have in mind? I'm sure we wouldn't want to see TAP get a life sentence, would we (or am I mixing your analogy with reality here)? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in engaging another pointless exhange with you. DeCausa (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps other editors would be interested to learn what you see as comparable "aspects of character". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The real problem with this kind of comment is the stereotyping - the assuming that EVERY teenager is unstable or unpredictable or whatever the point is supposed to be. I'm sure we all know people who sailed through adolescence, competent and high-achieving and not destructive in any way. Clearly we have such young people here as successful admins. I really object to this tar-every-teen-with-the-same-brush kind of reasoning. (BTW there is also plenty of literature showing that people go through unpredictable changes in midlife. Maybe we should oppose anyone who is middle aged on the same basis.) --MelanieN (talk) 21:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about being "destructive" or "unstable" in a negative sense. You've jumped to conclusions there. The develpoment could well be positive - hence my point on the minimum tarrif in the criminal justice system. The point is rapid development. And it's not stereotyping, it's well documented in medical literature. DeCausa (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While medical literature may back your statement up, it is also true that some teenagers could be logical and constructive (for example, through their 3+ years of dedication to Wikipedia without once vandalizing). And also, the brain cells and executive functions are still developing in teenage years. However, if the teenager cannot control their Wikipedia usage, the teenager should ask a guardian to monitor them while they edit Wikipedia.
Comments like schoolchildren should be focusing on their schoolwork are unnecessary, and comments like Any administrator must be at least 18 years old which is considered enough mature to handle such a demanding task. I know the RfA doesn't impose any age restrictions. are untrue because executive functions don't fully develop until the early 20s. In addition, an admin under 18 doesn't need to deal with legal threats or NSFW content; they can just do routine work like page protection or blocking vandals. Epic Genius (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to say, just about anything you see in the popular press about what "the brain" does is probably wrong. It's usually based on something true, but so distorted and yanked out of its original context and repeated like a telephone game that there's no conclusions to be drawn from it, certainly not about any specific individual. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I read this in a book. And since I am an epic genius, I memorized it. Epic Genius (talk) 02:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The traditional "age of majority" in many places was well under 18 - the UK raised the "legal drinking age" from 14 back in the 1930s, and it is all of 16 today with parental consent. In most of Europe, children at age 12 routinely drink beer or wine, and may marry at age 14 in a large part of Europe. It is rational to discuss the immaturity or maturity of a specific candidate for Administrator, but to use a specific age as a primary rationale is irrational. Florida, Georgia and other states issue drivers licenses at 15 (limited), and the age in some states was as low as 12 historically. FWIW, I fear my opinion is that the votes solely on the basis of age are problematic at best, but that is only my opinion as Wikipedia has no statement of policy which would prevent the election of a 15 or 16 year old as an administrator at all. Collect (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect: The age of majority typically refers to the age when a person can generally enter into legally binding contracts on the same terms that most adults can. Drinking ages, driving ages, ages to get professional licenses, ages to run for public offices, and in some countries the age to vote or get married without special permission are different than the age of legal majority. I think there is, or was until recently, a state in the United States where the age of majority was 19, or perhaps "19, or 18 upon graduating from High School or having a GED. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If a person can enter into valid contracts (marriage), drive etc. and is allowed to edit on Wikipedia in the first place - is there any policy at all suggesting that they can not hold administrator tools once called "no big deal"? Really? Collect (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1) I support this candidate, 2) in most countries, once a minor gets married, he is emancipated and is a legal adult for almost all purposes (in the US, voting and holding certain "unsafe for minors" jobs are common exceptions), 3) there are some roles where, for real or perceived legal reasons, you have to be a legal adult. Being an administrator (or even a 'crat, I think) is not one of them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to propose a minimum age be added for admin-ship, then take it to the WP:PUMP. I see no issue with age if the candidate does their job, and can step up to the task at hand. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The relevant policy is WP:ADMIN which states, "The English Wikipedia has no official requirements to become a Wikipedia administrator ... each editor will assess their confidence in a particular candidate's readiness in their own way." In other words, if some editors consider age to be significant then that's fine – that's one way they have of assessing readiness. If other editors have other, different ways of assessing readiness, that's fine too. We each get to have our say and the overall result is an aggregate of these various assessments. Andrew D. (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As an example: If a person voted on the basis that "editor X is left-handed" then the closer should assign full equal weight because the voter considered it to be "significant"? I fear I demur - unless we establish that all administrators who passed the gauntlet before the age of 18 are desysopped on the basis that this is a "significant" hurdle to overcome. As I see nothing to support such in Wikipedia policy nor Wikipedia history, I demur that "age" alone is a valid strong argument in itself. Collect (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns: 12 Google-Translated GAs (out of 18), lack of Talk-page attribution; etc.[edit]

[Comment moved to RfA page instead per banner at top of this page: "Otherwise, avoid starting discussions here if they would be of interest to RfA participants and can fit on the main RfA page; generally, discussions should begin at the "General comments" section or as an indented reply to a vote.". Softlavender (talk) 10:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)][reply]

This RFA was a disgrace[edit]

Next time someone asks what's wrong with RFA, a link here will be my entire response. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong feeling about whether it's okay to post on the talkpage of a completed RfA (I see there's been some disagreement back-and-forth), but as a practical matter, it's unlikely that a post here will be seen by many people anyway, so I don't suggest having more of an argument about that question. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it's a disgrace that only after a few days and many supports people actually started looking at the contributions of the nominee with a critical eye and found them to be too problematic to be acceptable for an admin. Sarcasm aside, a post like yours (even disregarding the time and location) is basically meaningless and useless. Unless you make your position clear with some arguments, you'll not convince any somewhat critical person by simply pointing at an RfA which you believe was a disgrace for undisclosed reasons. Fram (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I see, most of the objections were nothing more than Pen's age, gleaned from oversighted material. The use of oversighted material for opposes is really disconcerting. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess that your and my definition of "most" is seriously different then. Fram (talk) 07:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could I ask that we respect the candidate and end this conversation? The fact is that the RfA has failed and going back over it here only serves to top the candidate from moving on and improving the encyclopedia. WormTT(talk) 07:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Thine_Antique_Pen&oldid=1076156921"