Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ryan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Ryan

[edit]

(17/36/2); Ended 17:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC) - Withdrawn

Ryan (talk · contribs) - I have been a Wikipedia for just over 2 years now. I've changed a lot over that time, but now I am very serious about editing. I opened this RfA not just to get the tools, but as a test to see if others think I am worthy. If I fail, I will know what to work on. If I pass, the I know I'm doing a good job. -[[Ryan]] (me) (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - Due to the many uncivil arguments on this page, and a few notes of advice on my talk page, I have decided to withdraw my request to become an administrator. -[[Ryan]] (me) (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • I am posting this comment in response to many of the opposing votes regarding CSD understanding. I do admit that my failure to comply with policy was due to to ignorance of it. I have recently read the policy, and understand it. I, truthfully, am not posting this to change votes, but to acknowledge that I have, and will make mistakes. Thank you. -[[Ryan]] (me) (talk) 01:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Mainly AfD (and other deletion discussions) and blocking of problem users (as follow up to warnings).
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My everyday contributions. As I've learned from some good friends, small contributions are just as good as large ones.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have been in one conflict. I generally, at least now, calmly explain my view of the matter, and try to be reasonable. When the situation is out of my hands, I'm not afraid to ask for help.

Optional questions from Rje:

4. Under what circumstances would you speedily delete a page?
A: I would speedily delete a page in the case is complies with a WP:CSD category. For example, yesterday I came across an article that read "Hellooo?" The article would be speedily deleted in compliance with CSD policy A3.
5. What, in your opinion, is the most important policy to Wikipedia?
A: WP:CIVIL; Wikipedia would most likely have failed by now if it's editors didn't remain civil in tough situations.
6. How would you determine consensus in XfD?
A: I am currently researching this, as I have not yet done so. I will answer as soon as possible.

Optional question from macy (retrieved from here):

7. Should age be at all taken into account when voting for a prospective admin or should the user be judged solely on the quality of their contributions to Wikipedia?
A:

General comments

[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Ryan before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
No intention to steal your thunder Xenocidic. I recalled seeing someone bring up instruction #6 for a recent self-nom RfA, then a few RfA's passed where it wasn't brought up, so I figured I'd drop a friendly note on a few, where there wasn't such a comment already. I didn't even realize it was your thing. ;) ⇔ ∫ÆS dt @ 23:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i joke ;>. i usually throw neutrals for leaving the acceptance line on a self nom. –xenocidic (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • When we're all done bitching at each other, can someone do the right thing and close this? Thanks. Naerii 23:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I am 13 I find the oppose here based(partially) on age deeply offensive. That is a ridiculous argument! What we're supposed to abandon our sleep(and thus grades,sanity,and future) for Wikipedia just because if we became an admin?! Ugh..--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 23:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you find it equally deeply offensive that you're not allowed to drive a car, take out a loan, buy a gun, vote ... --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:::now you are just plain getting off the subject. Mistakes on wikipedia with the tools are diff than the things you mentioned. Quite simply. People aren't likely to die. That's one reason those things are restricted. Wikiepdia is diff. It's an online encyclopedia which anyone can contribute to. And anyone who demonstrates the understanding of policy,civility, and maturity necessary should be able to become an admin. Do not continue this ridiculous argument.--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 23:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not characterise my argument as "ridiculous". You may not agree with it, but it is not ridiculous. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AKA "I have no response".Yeago (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello everyone, I would like to remind you to remain civil, I do not want these conflicts to elevate any more than they already have. Keep a cool head, people. -[[Ryan]] (me) (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That response was perfectly executed. As we adults started clubbing each other over your right to be taken seriously, and at face value, you calmly post this. Bravo. ⇔ ∫ÆS dt @ 23:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My opinion on the whole fact he's 12 years old is this: he's 12??!?!?! He joined WP at age 10 and didn't crash and burn?!!?!?!? Gosh, I've never taken the time to read his userpage, and was extremely surprised to learn that. Maxim(talk) 23:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • About Question 5: WP:COOL is an essay, not a policy. Maybe you wanted to say WP:CIVIL? Enigma message 00:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am curious. The editor said he only did this to see how Wikipedians thing about it. He siad that if it failed he would would have to go back and do different things to prepare him. He also said that if he passed, it would show that we show he is doing a good job. I am not sure about this. If he wanted to know, why not do a editor review?? I am wondering why instead of doing an editor review, he went straight to adminship?? America69 (talk) 03:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to above question:Well there's a huge log at editor review. Only editors you know or have met will review you. RfA,though<chuckle> it's like the celtics@lakers. Everyone's here.--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 03:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to say you are right. Thank you for clearing that up. America69 (talk) 03:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with pre-teen editors (but I'd like to see more volunteer oversight), and I'm fine with the RfA process; I'm not fine with putting the two together. There should either be some kind of separate but similar process, specifically for people under 13, or a different procedure at RfA. Any mother I know would be horrified to think that, after their 12-year-old had spent a couple of years staying up late making thousands of edits to improve an encyclopedia, they would be told, in effect, you suck, and go make another couple of thousand and see if you can get it right this time. The odds that this kind of process will be healthy or helpful for a 12-year-old are low. I'm not saying that we're being overly harsh; I'm saying that we're not taking into account the psyche of pre-teens, who can internalize this kind of criticism in harmful ways, despite their ability to appear (and feel) stoic about it. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support
[edit]
  1. Strong support I've had only good interactions with this user. He's not the type to go on a rampage. He's been here for a long time, has good experience and I think he'll make a good admin. Al Tally talk 21:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, mainly assuming that nothing bad will happen if the user were to be promoted. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I'll reinstate that this has nothing to do with age. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 05:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Civil and level-headed. I don't think he'd ever abuse the admin tools, though he should probably go to WP:NAS before making any big decisions. · AndonicO Engage. 22:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Support. I don't see anything that gives me pause about trusting you with the tools, so I will support. ⇔ ∫ÆS dt @ 22:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I find the age bias against Ryan in this RfA to be unfortunate, if not offensive, therefore I find it necessary to express strong support. I have strengthend my vote accordingly. ⇔ ∫ÆS dt @ 23:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)'[reply]
    So is your vote worth two votes now? Should I match it by changing mine to Strong oppose? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh. No, my vote will still only count as one, as will yours. I don't think a closing bureaucrat has ever weighted the expressed strength of votes. My action is symbolic, much as expressing moral support in an RfA doomed to close per WP:NOTNOW. Many support votes in RfA's express sentiments on the value or validity of opposes already cast. My strong support is an expression of my perspective on oppose votes cast due to the age of the candidate, and those oppose votes expressing the age of the candidate as the sole reason for the vote, not an opposition you specifically. That is why I replied that I respected your position, even if I disagree, in my comment below, and strengthened this vote generally. I do feel as I feel, and will express strong support as I feel it. If you feel the need to express strong opposition, feel free. I don't think you need to do so in response to me, but you are free to do so for whatever reason you wish. I would only ask you not see it as some kind of arms race, where you and I keep ratcheting up our feelings on the matter. I think it is clear where both of us stand. ⇔ ∫ÆS dt @ 23:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is indeed. So I'm thinking of matching your Strong support and raising you a Very strong oppose. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All in. Now where did I put those launch keys?  ;) ⇔ ∫ÆS dt @ 23:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - he seems to know what he is doing around here.   jj137 (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Extremely Strong Support I agree with Majorly.--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 23:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, I'm all out of chips now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Very Strong Support - Opposing based on his age is really immature ..thats' just sad, I know one good admin who is 12 years old and probably more mature then all the opposers combined, plus I value experience more than anything else.....--Cometstyles 23:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have personal knowledge of the opposers you would like to share, which might give some weight to your opinion? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but opposing someone based on their age is really not something we should try to promote on wikipedia, as Julian noted we have 3 too many opposes based on his age, and Ageism is something we should never take lightly, if people think that a 12 year old can't make rational decisions, then why is it people base their opposes on that, and I only meant those opposing based on his age rather than his contribution to wikipedia...--Cometstyles 00:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Mainly because I am tired of opposes based on age. Well, not really. I think this is a good editor who was done an excellent job at contributing, regardless of age. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You realize that there have only been 3 opposes based on the age, right?--Koji†Dude (C) 00:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So? They might as well have been opposes based on race or gender.See racism and sexism.:(--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 00:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that you are misguided. Race or gender cannot be changed. Human beings, on the other hand, do grow up. Or at least some of them do. Allegedly. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While it is true age changes, it is still beyond the control of the person bearing it, however much it is destined to change. I have no more control over the fact that I am an adult than Xp54321 and Ryan have over the fact that they are adolescents. When age alone, and not maturity, is used as a reason for denying contributions a person may well be able to make, and feels they are able to make, the denial is still based on something the person is powerless over - a feature as immutable in the present moment as race is for all time. That powerlessness, over something a person cannot change, cannot will to differ, can be very unpleasant for a person to be subject to, even with the knowledge that it will, one day, pass. I did not become a different person on the day of my eighteenth birthday, I simply inherited the right to be taken seriously. I remember when I did not have that right, and was told that on one arbitrary day in my future, things would change. That is why I am prone to judge based on a person's knowledge, maturity, and actions, and not their age. ⇔ ∫ÆS dt @ 00:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c)Your comment makes no sense, dude. :-/ I was making a note of the # of age-based oppose votes. He said he was "sick" of them, and there has been a big fuss about it in the discussion section, when really only 3 out of 11 people even made a note about it. What are you talking about?--Koji†Dude (C) 00:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Three opposes based on age is four too many, as it is not an actionable !vote and will most likely be disregarded by the closing 'crat. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is actionable, it just takes a while. giggy (:O) 00:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But is there any evidence that a younger administrator will preform poorly and shouldn't be given the mop? I can think of a dozen other reason to oppose this candidate, as I could probably do with any candidate, but age is most certainly not one of them. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is that discriminating based on race,gender(never of transsexuals?),or age is wrong.--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 00:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    RfA is a vote. Get over it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    RfA is most certainly not a vote; it is an attempt to gain consensus of whether an editor can be trusted with adminship. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Julian is very much correct. Wikipedia is not a democracy or any form of government. Please see WP:CIVIL and WP:NOT for more information Malleus.--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 00:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ... and Santa Claus lives at the North Pole. Oh wait, I think I hear the tooth-fairy calling. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, I am growing tired of your comments making young editors look like crap. 12 year olds would do far better than some grown editors as an administrator. Please remain WP:CIVIL, as currently you are inflicting personal attacks. Thank you. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Equally, I am growing rather tired of your comments, so I will leave you children to this RfA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that you are not fond of children or people younger than yourself. That is fine, and I respect your opinion. However, comments like "...and Santa Claus lives at the North Pole. Oh wait, I think I hear the tooth-fairy calling." are unneeded and add no respectability to your opinion. I presume you were a child once, and would have been very much discouraged at a time like this, as I am sure Ryan is now. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Many children are just fine. I wouldn't lend any of them my car though. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So it is Ryan in particular you are opposed to? If so, it would help to give specific reason why you personally believe he will not preform well as an administrator, rather than opposing entirely based upon age. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No it is not. I fundamentally object to any candidate who cannot be held legally accountable for their actions because of their age. I would equally oppose a candidate unfit because of their mental state. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So you do not even take into account how well an editor has contibuted to the encyclopdia when !voting in an RfA with a younger person as the candidate? As I said, I respect your opinion, but I honestly suspect you are trying to prove a point. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, Xp54321, I don't think saying things like "Go see WP:CIVIL and WP:NOT, Malleus", in that wording, is going to help Ryan or improve the atmosphere here. Acalamari 00:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    RfA is usually implemented as a vote by supermajority. 60% fails. 80% passes. RfA isn't a vote only in a narrow margin of percentages, where human judgment is used to attempt to divine rough consensus. There is a difference between the ideal of a thing, and its practical implementation, and this difference often comes about by necessity. ⇔ ∫ÆS dt @ 00:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Support per Cometstyles. My personal opinion on all this age mess is RfA's should be based on experience, NOT age. There could easily be unmature 40 year olds (or any age, for that matter), running for adminship, and you wouldn't support them because of their age. So why oppose a mature 12 year old just because of his age? LittleMountain5 00:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The supporting users here disregarding ageism are the mature ones. Ageism is like racism and sexism and shows ignorance,immaturity, and the reason we have wars,disease,and so many other problems....The reason. We can't learn to all get along and solve our problems!--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 00:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I applaud the editors here who truly know how to judge people.:D--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 00:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong support, a trustworthy editor. The ageist oppose votes are repulsive. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 00:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see the link posted below by Animum about this age thing. It's an excellent link. Look at it Malleus.--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 00:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also the "santa clause" cmt; I have rm it as a personal attack. Do not restore it.--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 00:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, Xp, your behaviour in this RfA has been most irritating. You make snarky comments, and then accuse others of incivility. You label comments which are no worse than yours personal attacks and remove them (East718 restored it, by the way). You attack those who have perfectly legitimate concerns about the user's age and maturity (though some of them express it in a way that I find distasteful, I must admit). You really do need to act with more maturity in this RfA. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur — while I don't particularly love the way MF expressed his opinion, his concerns are completely legitimate; I, too, would be a bit cautious in trusting a twelve-year-old with the responsibility of adinship, especially when concerning the law. --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 02:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong support I've never seen a kid's RfA (sorry if I sound patronising; that's not my intention, I assure you), and especially not one in which the candidate is such a mature user. WTHN? It's not as if you'll crash Wikipedia if we give you the mop; you're not four. --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 01:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Changed to weak oppose. I'm sorry, but noticing Malinaccier's diffs, I'm a bit worried as to how you would do as an admin. --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 01:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. I like his attitude, and he knows what WP:CSD#A3 is (WP:CSD#G2 would also apply), so I'm taking this flying leap into the unknown. — Athaenara ✉ 01:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And I concur with Xp54321: "anyone who demonstrates the understanding of policy, civility, and maturity necessary should be able to become an admin." — Athaenara ✉ 01:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support The accusations against this young man's character and abilities, based solely on his age, are truly emetic. I think he would be a fine admin -- and a mature one, too. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Moral assume good faith support. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support — self noms demonstrate the boldness demanded of an admin. –xenocidic (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Default good faith support vote, strengthened by his comments during this RFA.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Moral Support You're a valuable user now--you'll likely be fantastic when you're older and more experienced. Keepscases (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - per Keepscases. Good luck! --Cameron* 16:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - I've seen you around the project, there's no evidence to suggest you'd abuse the tools. To be honest, I think your age is irrelevant when it comes to admin candidacy. I can't see this RfA succeeding but if you were to run again, you'll have my vote. Also you have a kickass name and I once had a request declined to acquire that username ——Ryan • (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose at this stage. I'm not a fan of editcounting, but you only have 418 non-automated mainspace edits; your automated edits are of this nature; e.g. the kind that you were expressly told not to make when you signed up for AWB. Additionally, all your AFD participation appears to be cut-and-paste "per noms". You may be fantastic, you may be terrible; there's just not enough to judge, and the failure to follow the AWB instructions pushes me over the line from "neutral" to "oppose". – iridescent 21:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comment. I will keep that in mind. -[[Ryan]] (me) (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting you'd oppose with that rationale, when all you do is automated edits. Yet more RfA hypocricy. Al Tally talk 22:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Extraordinary. As I've worked with iridescent on several articles in the past I know that you are quite mistaken in your comment. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I agree with Malleus on this one. Iridescent is a brilliant editor and admin, and just because a few recent edits (considering Iridescent, 500 is not much) are automated doesn't make him a hypocrite. Why all the personal attacks, today? --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 01:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The proof is right there. Last 500 edits are all automated. Al Tally talk 22:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You said "All you do ...". The last 500 edits may well be automated, but has iridescent only made 500 edits? I'm leaving this now, as I realise that badgering opposers in RfAs is the fashion this season. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because he's being hipocrytical, doesn't mean his point is moot. That's just a cheap shot at Iridescent, one that was pretty un-called for.--Koji†Dude (C) 22:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (<--) Majorly, has it occured to you that iridescent's edits are actually useful, while Ryan's (clicking the diff helps here) was totally useless? giggy (:O) 23:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Oppose you want to carry out admin actions at AfD's, yet you have very few AfD contributions and even those leave a lot to be desired. Oh, and you're 12 years old, which for me is too young for adminship. RMHED (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We have plenty of administrators who are as young as Ryan, and they do fine. Malinaccier (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe so, but I don't think someone who has a bedtime should be a sysop. RMHED (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How is that relevant to the discussion at hand? I'll answer for you: nothing. Al Tally talk 22:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's my opinion, what part of that don't you understand. Now quit badgering me sonny. RMHED (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll badger you as much as I like "RMHED". Just to let you know, your oppose is one of the worst I have ever seen in two years of RfA votes. If there was a Hall of Shame for rubbish opposes, yours would be right up there :) Al Tally talk 22:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The main reason for my oppose was the candidates lack of AfD experience, yet they want to carry out admin actions there. Their young age is a secondary reason, yet you latched on to that to badger me. So Al Tally or Majorly or whatever you call yourself these days, quit it. RMHED (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it's the bedtime comment that really got to me. My parents who are in their forties have a bed time. I imagine most people in the world have a time they go to bed regularly. It's such a ridiculous comment. Your point about the AfDs is fair, but really, you must be desperate for reasons to bring up the fact that someone has a bed time. By your reasoning, most people couldn't be admins. Al Tally talk 22:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If your bedtime is imposed by your parents then I don't think adminship is appropriate. RMHED (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I try to go to bed at 10:00pm (which could be considered a "bedtime", if you want), and that has never affected my judgment as an administrator. Acalamari 22:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes but is your bedtime imposed by your parents? RMHED (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What is your point about your "bedtime" thing? Seriously...--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 23:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As an uninvolved person offering a comment, please see something that Newyorkbrad said on the subject. —Animum (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Poor old Brad, conjured up from the departed to haunt us like Banquo's ghost. Can't say I agree with his opinion on this subject though, verbosity seldom equals insight. RMHED (talk) 01:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. I'm sorry, but there are a few issues I found in your last 700 contributions. First of all, you listed several (1, 2, 3, and 4) pages in your userpace at WP:MFD when you should have tagged them with {{db-u1}} or something similar. This shows you may not have a full knowledge of speedy deletion policy and other aspects of deletion process. In these 700 contributions, I only saw one edit to an AFD which worries me because you state that this will be one of your main activities as an admin. My suggestion would be to do less automated editing (per iridescent) and to get a wider range of experience. Sorry, Malinaccier (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would just like to say that age has nothing to do with this oppose (at all). Malinaccier (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. I do not want to see another 12-year-old administrator. Ever. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm curious to your reasoning on this, Malleus. Isn't how Ryan acts on wikipedia far more important than his age? I've known extremely mature 12-year-olds (who I would trust with adminship, even if it entails the ability to replace the main page on the 7th most visited site in the world with a giant phallus, WP:BEANS aside), and extremely immature 25-year-olds who I'd be hesitant about trusting with a paper plate and napkin. Ryan can't control his age, only how he interacts with others and the project as a whole. I, personally, am deeply concerned by bias as a function of age alone, when not backed up by other evidence of immaturity, and I feel it is appropriate to ask you more about your position here. ⇔ ∫ÆS dt @ 22:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not feel that I have to justify my view that there ought to be a minimum age requirement to be an administrator on wikipedia. Nobody who is too young to be legally held to account for their actions should be an administrator, anywhere. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your position, and while I disagree, I respect it. ⇔ ∫ÆS dt @ 23:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Oppose. I do not want to see another 12-year-old administrator. Ever" ..just want to know who the first 12 year old admin is that you disagree with ? ...--Cometstyles 00:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Per Malinaccier and Iridescent. I also went back and looked over his edit count. From August 2007 to January 2008 he made few to no edits at all. I am wondering why?? America69 (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm guessing he was on a wikibreak, but I'm not 100% sure, so please correct me if I'm wrong.   jj137 (talk) 02:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    During that time period, I was semi-retired. -[[Ryan]] (me) (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do think we should not have admins gone for such long periods. America69 (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per Malinaccier and Iridescent. I don't see anything that really shows me you have a clear-cut understanding of the deletion process.--Koji†Dude (C) 22:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also opposed per Q5 and Q6. WP:COOL isn't a policy, and any XfD "research" should have been done long before an RfA.--Koji†Dude (C) 03:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sorry, 12 year old admins is a no-no. Naerii 22:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it bad to have 12-year old admins? Ilyanep was promoted to bureaucrat when he was 13 years old, so I don't see what's wrong with having 12-years old admins. (Also, could you please provide another reason for your oppose?). macytalk 01:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The very idea that we even entertain requests from twelve year olds to help administrate the seventh most popular website in the world shows just what a joke this place is. I wasn't around to vote when Ilyanep was promoted. And no, I don't need any other reason. It's amazing that we even allow children to edit. Naerii 01:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, stop being ageist, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that EVERYONE can edit, without restrictions. There's nothing wrong with letting young users to contribute to Wikipedia. macytalk 01:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I guess if I BOLD AND CAPITALISE it, it must be true. Naerii 01:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Discrimination based on age is actually a very fair and neutral way to do things. Much less subjective or upsetting or difficult than based on personality or perceived judgment or whatever. Would anyone here allow a 5 year old to be an admin? Of those who cried 'ageist', why not? Peter Damian (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    5-year-olds, the last refuge of the ageist. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't follow your link because my Net minder says it's a profane/abusive website. So I don't know what sort of 'ageist fallacy' is in question. But your point is that it's also OK for 5 year olds to be Wikipedia admins? If so I don't agree. Some 5 year olds can't read, for a start. Peter Damian (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Would anyone vote for anyone that couldn't read? I certainly wouldn't, regardless of the candidate's age. Despite the implications of your analogy, no one's arguing that you should vote for a child by virtue of their being a child -- that's ageism, too. But if you don't vote for a five year old, it should be because they can't read [etc.], not simply because they're five. The point is to judge others as individuals, not members of a group. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose 90% on the automated edit and age issue. I'm not a big edit count guy but 400 are just isn't enough to show enough interaction. The short, uninformative answers don't show enough to make up for the rest. 10% on Majorly's badgering. RxS (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What have Majorly's comments got to do with Ryan's suitability to be an admin? Naerii
    Nothing. That's just pathetic. Al Tally talk 22:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    RxS, I suggest you not answer that question. You'll probably get kicked off the wiki for having too much balls if you do.--Koji†Dude(C) 22:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mind answering....I just said that to object to Majorly's edits here. It worked. Majorly needs to cool it. If this were my RFA, I'd have gone immediately to Majorly's talk page and asked him to stop. Majorly, what's pathetic is your combative and relentless badgering. Over an off hand 10% comment, lame. RxS (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to say Majorly is doing nothing to help this RFA pass with his combative attitude. I am however not basing my desicion on that. America69 (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per Malinaccier. I've been keeping an eye on things (filing closed discussions) over at MfD for a little while now, and his last two MfDs which are from yesterday and today are troublesome (notice that it was explained to him yesterday that an MfD was not needed). Frankly I'm a bit shocked to see this request so soon. Come back in 6 months, given that you've improved. — MaggotSyn 22:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. per a brief discussion on irc with this user, I have come to understand that it was a simple mistake that these came to MfD. Although I believe him, I would still like to see a bit more experience in handling such requests, and an application of read first, edit later. Lets not jump in with a cursory knowledge of process. Best regards. — MaggotSyn 00:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Too young immature. giggy (:O) 23:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC) (creatively struck to satisfy a third party... giggy (:O) 10:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    Answer to Q5 is a killer regardless of which shortcut starting with C is chosen. giggy (:O) 07:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. Nothing to do with age, but I'm opposing because of lack of experience. I don't like seeing such an overwhelming majority of an editor's contribs immediately prior to an RFA be automated. That was a horribly-worded sentence, I might have to fix that. Also, not quite enough experience yet in the Wikipedia namespace. I think that if you tone down your use of automated tools and instead work manually, I hope I can be in the support column next time. Useight (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose due to poor Xfd understanding as shown by the Mfd diffs. I can't trust you with the tools for Xfds yet. Come back in a few months with better Xfd rationales.--Lenticel (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per User:Useight. I'm not saying never, but definately not yet. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Virtually no "real" contributions to article talk, very little interaction in user talk. This makes me very uncomfortable with a user who intends to start blocking. Contributions to XfD are weak, don't show much knowledge of policy. Answer to all questions thus far are weak and uninformative. WP:COOL is not a policy. Answer to question 6 is the worst though... maybe you should have had some confidence in this before coming to an RfA where you state you want to become an admin to participate in AfD? General maturity issues. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 01:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. I know of several admins promoted at the same age as Ryan, I also know of at least one bureaucrat promoted in his very early teens. Age is not an issue, there are very good young editors and some very poor older editors. I firmly believe that all RfA candidates should be judged purely on their own merit. Unfortunately, the answers given by Ryan indicate that he does not yet have an understanding of key issues vital to being a successful administrator - particularly one working in the areas that he has indicated that he wants to work in. If these answers were given by a candidate who had not disclosed their age I would oppose on grounds of inexperience, so I feel it is only appropriate that I oppose Ryan as well. I would encourage Ryan to read WP:ARL and apply again when he has a better grasp of policy and the correct use of the buttons. Rje (talk) 01:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Unfortunately, no. Not only do you have weak mainspace contributions, which is usually the deciding factor for me, your participation in nearly all areas is stunted, even the AfDs you profess interest in. This is also rather troubling, as it shows an astounding lack of knowledge of the CSD criteria. As others have said above, your youth/maturity is also a concern. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm stunned that anyone could witness Ryan's profoundly calm, controlled behavior during this RfA and then complain about his maturity. Should I laugh? --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 01:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Most can put on a facade of maturity during an RfA when they know they have to be careful because they're under scrutiny, which is why considering their maturity during the RfA won't necessarily reflect their normal maturity. Go ahead and laugh. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nousernamesleft, I don't want to discriminate any user, but, while I agree with you a little, I think that the "your youth/maturity is also a concern" is a bit ageist, because you're 12 years old too. macytalk 01:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking through Ryan's edits, he doesn't seem to have very good communication skills (no offense to the candidate; many people don't) which is why I included maturity, though now that I think of it, perhaps that's only tangentially related. I obviously don't mind youth alone, unlike some of the other opposers, but the two coupled are concerning. I'll strike it if you like - it's rather minor, and you do have a point in your response. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My oppose is reinforced by the candidate's answer to question five. Placing civility above NPOV? Really. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 02:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Weak oppose Sorry, Ryan. Looking even deeper into your contribs, I'm not fully confident you know CSD all that well, and you could use more experience in other "adminny-tasks" such as XFD, RFPP, and the like. Come back in about 4 months, and I'll be happy to support. Thanks, --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 01:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  18. Oppose per Malinaccier and Iridescent. --Kaaveh (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong Oppose - Per Iridescent and Mal. Wants to work in deletion area, yet experience is lacking, drive by voting at AFD doesn't sit well with me. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose for now, as it appears the candidate isn't familiar enough with deletion policies, and the use of AWB to make null edits is a bit troubling. krimpet✽ 01:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. oppose should have asked for editor review instead. Not sufficiently sure of policies etc, and just a very young child- all of us don't have the best judgment at that age- this isn't an assumption, the brain isn't even fully physically developed. Sticky Parkin 02:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose, seems to be on the right track but as mentioned above, just doesn't seem ready for the mop yet. Not enough relevant experience for me to judge how trustworthy he will be with it. Shereth 02:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose. The candidate needs more editing experience, particularly in mainspace and AfD. I'm also concerned that the candidate may not understand core policies. Majoreditor (talk) 02:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. I have no problem supporting a twelve-year-old administrator, but Ryan's not ready yet. Ral315 (talk) 03:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strongest Possible Opppose. User clearly doesn't understand policy. Now that administrators can do anything under BLP per the recent ArbCom ruling, I don't think its a good idea to be giving uberfied lazermops with autocannons that haven't read the manual first. Celarnor Talk to me 03:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose. I'm not concerned with the age issue and prefer to look at a candidate's maturity, regardless of whether they claim they're 12 or 40. We don't really know who/what people are unless they self-declare and even then you have to take what people say with a grain of salt and I think young people who have aspirations of becoming administrators will just stop self-declaring their age if their age is going to be used against them as an RfA standard. Trust me, a 12-year-old is not going to wait until they turn 18 to become an administrator, they just won't tell you how old they are. So I find age-based opposes rather misguided and self-defeating because ultimately young people will not self-identify and you won't know they're 12-years-old when they come to RfA. I personally prefer to look at maturity when reviewing any candidate rather than going by what they say is their age. However, I have to oppose this RfA because I agree with what Iridescent said at oppose comment 1. Looking through your edits, it is very difficult to get a handle on your understanding of policy because you have so few non-automated edits and your XfD edits don't give me a great insight into your ability to apply deletion policy. Please consider making more non-automated edits and participating more in discussions so that other users can get an idea of your understanding of our policies and how you would apply policy if you were an admin. Sarah 03:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Also...he's 12. Seriously. Someone that young should never be an admin, period, full stop. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose-Most websites that allow user contributions, etc, use 13 as the cut-off for participation/membership due to United States Law and this is a US based website. 12 is way to young to be an admin. I am not saying he will magically mature in one year, but the line has to be drawn somewhere (Otherwise I may nominate my 8 year old niece). I also understand this does not apply to a non-profit like Wikipedia Foundation, but its a good guideline.--Finalnight (talk) 04:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. I haven't even looked at Ryan's contributions. 12 is too young. I don't care if we already have 12 year old admins - we shouldn't. Neıl 龱 08:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose. Even if the candidate was 21 years old, he's woefully inexperienced and unsuited to be an administrator, but at 12, that's way too young - there's a lot of really unpleasant stuff that's happened to administrators over the past year and it's unfair to expect any 12 year old to put themselves through the increasing levels of harassment that some administrators have suffered in real-life over the past year or so. Nick (talk) 09:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose - really sorry but, per many of the others. 12 is too young, IMO. To the peanut gallery watching, that's a comment on chronological age, not maturity, mm-kay? - Alison ❤ 11:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Extremely disappointing Alison. Al Tally talk 16:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure Ryan finds that diff extremely helpful to his goal of learning what he needs to improve on.--Koji†Dude (C) 16:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you going to say that to every oppose that is just as helpful? No? Didn't think so. Oh, and stop badgering me!!1! Al Tally talk 16:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose - Age. You're not able to be legally held accountable for anything... it my oppose doesnt have anything to do with maturity, it has to do with legality. Qb | your 2 cents 12:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose - Really sorry. Has nothing, and I repeat, nothing to do with your age. I looked at your answers, and I would have NEVER guessed that you are but twelve (twelve, not 12) years old. Unfortunately, your editing is average, and not well-rounded. You may be a good admin if chosen, but I don't feel that you'd be able to assist well in mainspace help, not having a good amt. of experience. As to your age, I really could care less. I guess that the U.S. law thing is important, but as long as there's no law on Wikipedia, I don't care. My suggestion is, try to get some more mainspace (meaning articles, if you didn't know) contributions, show that you can help Wikipedia on the front lines, so to speak, and try again in a while. (You'll be older by then anyway. ;)) BTW, it's great to know that kids your age have an eager interest in helping people (by becoming an admin, and by contributing at all to Wikipedia). Great job. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 14:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose. Age. Sorry. My son is that age and I wouldn't let him even edit Wikipedia (hmmm - as far as I know). And in any case, edits. Peter Damian (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose. I can't oppose for the age-related criticisms noted above me, since I am young myself, but in my opinion, the candidate is inexperienced in too many areas, whilst some of the diffs located above, the userpage 'socialising' aspect and the poor answers to supplied questions can not be ignored either. I'd also like to express my concern at some of the attitudes some have shown here at this RfA, some of which are completely inappropriate to the assessment of a nominee. Greman Knight. 15:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose. I'd like to see come contributions, at minimum a DYK. Many admins here haven't made any content contributions recently, and are great admins, but things have changed a lot since they became admins. I'd like to see some decent contributions first, so I can know that you understand how to do basic stuff, such as reference an article, and that you could cope in content disputes on your own when attempting to calm things down. Just to clarify, this is not age-related, rather the fact this RfA is too early. Qst (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
You appear to be neutral and supporting. Which is it to be? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry moving comment to discussion.--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 23:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I hate doing this - its certainly not your age; I was, I believe a responsible and intelligent fellow when I was 12. Its the absence of a circumspect editing record - while your efforts to fight vandalism are commendable and responsible, your edits to your own userpage account for more than 20% of your edits; in comparison, your mainspace work is miniscule. At the same time, the monthly editing pace (actually ~ 300 is quite reasonable in other circumstances I think) is not sufficient in the sense that it doesn't look good that you spend a lot of the time you do spend on your userpage and automated edits. The advice of Sarah above is most sound and I am also perturbed by what Finalnight has to say above. With the greatest respect, I suggest withdrawal for now. Come back in 6 months or so ith a better record of content development and doing chores - might take the rest of 2008 to shake off the age critics - and you'll win a lot of respect and support for your demonstration of patience and maturity. All the best, Vishnava talk 05:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I have no issue with your age, the fact we have had a 13 year old crat and two 12 year old admins that I know of, proves that argument to be false. I am concerned with the weak Wikipedia: space contributions, as well as some of the deletion issues other users have brought up and would encourage you to seek my experience and reapply. MBisanz talk 07:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You mistake an argument for a statement of opinion. The fact that you do not agree with an opinion that 12 is too young to be an administrator proves nothing other than that you disagree with that opinion. Further, because there are other 12-year-old administrators is not germaine to this particular RfA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. And I see where you all come from when you oppose based on the fact that Ryan cannot hypothetically be held legally responsible for actions on Wikipedia. However, there are many admins that are between the ages of 13 and 17 (and thus still can't be held legally accountable, though they're above twelve). --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 14:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's different laws, useless to discuss here in a global forum. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But, assuming Ryan is in the US, it would apply to him, would it not? --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 14:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Tort law, criminal law, aren't just about if you are 18 or not. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ryan&oldid=1149835335"