Forum:CT:Admin Age


This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Wookieepedia admins must be of adult age (18+) —Xwing328(Talk) 05:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I started this CT to see if the general user population of Wookieepedia thinks there should be a certain age for Wookieepedians to become administrators. I've heard most Wookieepedians prefer that someone be of at least high school age, though others think that they should be over 13 (due to COPPA), some that there should be no required age, and others that prefer that Wookieepedians should just not reveal their age then, though I disagree with this because in my opinion it is better to not lie to a website about your age, which could lead to legal problems in the future. Here I have listed those 4 options for the community to vote on. (Feel free to add more options if you see fit) Roron Corobb Talk NR Seal 22:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Wookieepedia admins must be of adult age (18+)

Support

  1. If you're still in high school, you don't have full control over when you can access the internet. If you don't have full control over your own life, you shouldn't have control over a website as large as this. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. --Eyrezer 23:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Weak support. I could be wrong, but I do believe that most of our current admins fall into this category. My concern lies with the status of any current admins under age 18 if this goes through. See comments below. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 23:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Green Tentacle (Talk) 23:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Unfortunately, there's no actual way of telling what one's age is. In the end, it comes down to trust. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) File:Implogo.png|20px 02:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Provided that any current admins who are now under 18 are unaffected. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 02:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Let minor admins keep their admin status.--Lord OblivionSith holocronSith Emblem 20:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Strongly Support. An admin should be at least an adult and an expert with computer systems particularly wikis. To me, adminship is a burden rather than a priveledge so one should be ready for it. Wonder if some admins really should be stripped of their status like those who act really like idiots rather than the authority. Remember that admins are the police and the government of a wikia. They can be of any race or gender but they have to be adults. Zainal 13:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. —Xwing328(Talk) 23:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Hopefully, an 18-year-old is mature enough already to have such responsibilities. - TopAce 23:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support. If for no other reason than a wide legal protection. I can't see a reason not to do this. --SparqMan 18:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. JMAS 18:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. I suppose that Jaymach's arguments make sense. But I think he's not giving enough credit to just how computer literate some high schoolers are...and how computer illiterate some adults are. -- SFH 20:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support with exemption to those existing minor admins which have helped us out immensely. But when we get 11-yr-olds asking why they aren't admin worthy and thus push the issue, then complaining about like an 11-yr-old might isn't a trait of a good admin. Of course it's also about responsibility and common sense. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  15. QuentinGeorge 00:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  16. Imp 22:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support, but not retro-active if we have any current admins that are less than 18. WhiteBoy 20:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Wookieepedia admins should be of at least high school age (generally 15-18 years)

Support

  1. Support. I think if a high school age user is mature and all enough to pass RFA process then fine. -Fnlayson 20:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. I mainly worry that very young admins wouldn't (a) carry the proper weight of authority (that is, older users might say "Why should I listen to you? You're just a kid!" Granted, these older users might be acting much less maturely than the admin in question...), and (b) have thick enough skin to deal with the barrage of flames from trolls and disgruntled users which all admins have been targeted by. —Silly Dan (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. KEJ 21:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. I think that if a user is is able to contribute enough good material to be recognized as an administrator, then age shouldn't be a huge problem. But, yes, if an age ban was introduced, a high-school age limit is probably the best and most inclusive. Furyan175 00:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Jorrel Fraajic Wiki-shrinkable Comlink 04:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Apply COPPA (13 years or older)

Support

  1. Yoshi626File:Yoshiegg.jpg|20px 02:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. I need a name (Complain here) 13:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Roron Corobb

Talk NR Seal 13:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC) I can wait if I do ever become one.

  1. This is the bare minimum. jSarek 06:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. I may change my vote to one of the more restrictive categories, but we must at least follow the law. - breathesgelatinTalk 00:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Apply the law. Anyone older than 13 should be treated on a case-by-case basis. --Azizlight 01:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No Age limit

Support

  1. FIGHT THE POWER!!! :) Support Roron Corobb

Talk NR Seal 23:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

    • You realize, if we don't support COPPA, we're breaking the law? There's already been sites sued for over $1,000,000, and I'd prefer we weren't one of them. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Simply don't reveal your age

Support

  1. Easier this way, methinks...Orange_lightsaberVillip 02:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. I don't know why someone would want to reveal their age, no matter how old they are, especially to strangers in a public environment. There is need for others to know your age, and if you don't reveal it, others can't find out. It's as simple as that. You don't see a lot of people giving away their address, phone number, credit card number, etc, do you? If a user is admin-material, then he/she should have an equal opportunity at adminship. There's even a user on Wikipedia who acquired the status of administrator and bureaucrat before the age of 15. So what? G.He(Talk!) 00:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Considering there are 15 year old fans who know that Star Wars is fictional, and yet 30 year olds who believe it to be real, I don't think that maturity is adherent to age in this fanbase. .... 00:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Age shouldn't matter. Of course maturity, availability and other things still greatly favors older users for the most part. Charlii 13:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 17:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. A lot of users would probably lie about their age anyway, so I think this is the best choice. Adamwankenobi 18:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Chack Jadson 20:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. How on earth would you enforce this anyway? Maclimes Zero (talk) Infinite Empire 23:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. As long as you don't act like a jackass.---Vladius Magnum(Clan Magnum)File:Dasymbol.gif|20px 01:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Herbsewell 23:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

So if the 18+ rule goes through, and we have any current admins that are under 18 (I don't think we do, but I'm not 100% positive on this), do they lose their adminship? I don't think they should, as they have already passed their RfA and have already proven they could be trusted. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 23:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm no admin, but I'm not revealing my age. I think that's the best policy. IMO, who really wants to know? Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 03:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • So...we may well already have admins under the age of 18. Doesn't that tell you something? .... 23:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude but... what is the point? I see wikis with 12 year olds as admins. nobody cares whether or nawt an admin is 18, and it won't matter in the end as the people who come here and care enough will lie if they do nawt meet the standards. nawt only that but you don't have any serious authority to ask a persons age. I think that if someone can get to the point of becomeing a sysop, they are completely Qualified. and yes, that is my Official opinion as a wikirescearcher. - cchristian talk

  • The above paragraph explains why we don't need 12 year olds as admins. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • looks for said paragraph* I'm confuzzled... what paragraph? all "Paragraph"s seem opposed to age limits. - cchristian talk
      • He means your paragraph. jSarek 23:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
        • then he is high... Please stawp using so many hallucinogens while editing wiki, thanks! ^. .^ {{SUBST:cchristian was here}}
          • No offence, but if you're a "wikiresearcher" and are using words like "nawt" and "stawp", it doesn't make you sound very mature. Hence the 12 year old comment. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 05:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Exactly my point. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
              • If you're not allowed to have me as an admin, then you're probably not allowed to have me as a user, if this be the case, why do you think 11-12 year olds cannot be admins, but they can be users? Under COPPA, wouldn't any user or admin have to be over 13 or such. If so, shouldn't you just ban me? I guess I can wait till age 13. I can come back when I'm older...and more mature possibly. Roron Corobb

Talk NR Seal 14:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

                • With more and more people using the Internet including children, we should not bar children under 13 years from editing here but there should always be an age limit which is either 16, 17 or preferably 18 years. If you leave us, Roron Corobb, we'll miss you very much. I have to admit that you are sensible for an eleven year old and a pre-teen since there are not many mature young people including teenagers these days Zainal 7:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
                  • Remember Roron, we're just discussing admins right now. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
                    • Down a dark path this will take us, if imposed an age limit is. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 16:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
                      • Definitely just a limit for admins. If it was for everybody, all you'd have to do is lie about it, like stated above. With only admins limited though, if a user being considered lied about their age, they probably wouldn't be an admin-quality contributor anyways. And if it was nobody, we might have some legal issues, again, like stated above. —Xwing328(Talk) 00:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't decided on my vote yet, but I will say that I think 18+ is too restrictive. Age =/= maturity, especially in SF/F fandom where teens seem (on the whole) more intelligent than "normal" kids their age.--Valin Kenobi 23:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Sorry you didn't get to vote, but (more than) two weeks is up, with a clear majority. —Xwing328(Talk) 05:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.