Forum:CT:Admin age exception

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Admin age exception

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 Change service exception to 1.5 years. Grunny (talk) 06:20, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

Let's face it: in the past couple of years, a number of users have come along who have simply blown most of us out of the water when it comes to positive contribution to the site. Young users brought in with new media such as Star Wars: The Clone Wars and Fate of the Jedi have become some of the site's most prolific authors and highest-quality reviewers, not to mention numerous younger users that patrol the recent changes, doing everything they can to combat vandalism and fanon without sysops rights. Last, but certainly not least, most of the users that come to mind are also possessed of a very measured temperament.

Forum:CT Archive/Admin Age from late 2006 established the minimum admin age of 18 years. At the January 2009 Mofference, the minimum age was debated, and it was decided to create a two-year service time exception for admin candidates that were under 18.

Wookieepedia:Administrators currently states:

"…all potential candidates are required to be either of adult age (18+) or have at least two years' experience of consistent, quality editing to the site."

Wookieepedia:Requests for user rights#Requests for adminship currently states:

"They either are of adult age (18 years or older) or have two years' worth of solid contribution to the site."

I am of the personal opinion that the minimum admin age is completely unnecessary: no candidate could secure election with 2/3 of both admin and user votes without being qualified. I feel that a number of more personal motives, such as ageism and the desire to keep the administration closed to younger users who are just as qualified as the site's oldest, are at play when people try to impose 18 years, or effectively 15 or 16 with the service time exception. There have been many users that have come along who were more than ready for adminship before the exception time was up, often at times when admin activity was at a low and new admins were required to serve the ever-growing community.

However, I do understand the sentiments expressed by those who outright oppose doing away with the limit, based on personal experience of my own growth during my adolescence. For this reason I am proposing a less sweeping adjustment to our policies to better fit, in my opinion, the growing trend of extremely qualified young users on the site that would be of much help when awarded sysops rights. I ask that a change in the exception service time from 2 years to 1.5 years be considered. The wording in the mentioned policy pages would remain the same save for the change in numbers. Graestan(Talk) 01:55, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

Voting

Change service exception to 1.5 years

  1. This would open up adminship to users who move very quickly to the elite and could be of great assistance. Broadening the pool from which to draw administrators can only increase the possibility of better candidates being considered as opposed to the approach of "well, who do we have that's acceptable" when admins are needed to maintain the growing site. Graestan(Talk) 01:55, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
  2. IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 01:59, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Interesting idea. JangFett (Talk) 02:06, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Successful underage admin candidates in the past like Acky, Chack, and Tranner show us that someone who is mature and capable under the age of 18 can and should be trusted. And Graestan has it right that no one undeserving will ever be admitted anyway, so there is no risk involved in letting a deserving user in a little earlier. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:12, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Absolutely. No one who is undeserving would be voted in regardless of their age. Grunny (talk) 02:13, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
  6. Per above. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 02:15, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
  7. Hey, if Amidala could be Queen at 14 . . . wait, how did that turn out again? Just kidding, good proposal. :P Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 02:16, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
  8. The current rules were originally enacted as a knee-jerk reaction to an annoying kid who shouldn't have even brought up the issue. The fact that no RFA nomination has failed since 2007 is proof that the community itself has matured to the point where a genuinely undeserving candidate can't even get nominated, let alone elected. I'd be in favor of dropping the age requirement entirely, but I'm also a firm believer in incremental reform when there's no emergency involved. We've taken one baby step toward dropping the age requirement, and I can't see any real justification not to take another. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 03:10, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
  9. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 04:08, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
  10. Per Grae, Grunny, and Tope. —Master Jonathan New Jedi Order (Jedi Council Chambers) 06:19, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
  11. Per above. -- 1358 (Talk) 06:22, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
  12. I was going to vote against per Havac but Graestan's comment below about the fact that adminship isn't always permanent changed my mind. NAYAYEN:TALK 07:11, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
  13. I actually support the complete removal of age limits and the acceptance of new admins based purely on their contributions and maturity, on the grounds that the idea that age corresponds to maturity is ludicrous. I know plenty of young people with a high level of maturity (and plenty of old ones with none). It's a generalisation, but this will do... for now :D SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is the truth) 07:58, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
  14. What does the age limit have to do with the number of people who are no longer admins? Exactly. Nothing. Chack Jadson (Talk) 19:00, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
  15. ASDF1239Chiss Ascendancy-DISCUSSION- 00:52, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
  16. Jedi Kasra (comlink) 03:37, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
  17. Having a transitory adminship is good for innovation, just like having a transitory userbase is. Given that most users aren't here forever, if we're gonna promote them it makes sense to promote them when they can do most good to the site. And young users will develop as much in the first few weeks of adminship as they will in the extra six months waiting. But I'm not sure how much the age thing has been about maturity so much as keeping adminship as exclusive as possible. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 11:59, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
  18. We might as well be more open to more vibrant users while they are active, and wouldn't want to discourage them too much. Remarkable that the last three years have all been successes for conventional administrators. Though I would like to see a case of an administrator up for vote where maturity was questioned, and no not a joke vote where someone puts up Kfan or Quinlan. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:13, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
  19. Per...well, everybody above. Couldn't say it any better, myself. Bella'Mia 08:28, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
  20. Per above. - Cavalier OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 09:05, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
  21. Bad candidates wouldn't be elected anyway, and several of our banned users are over 18, IIRC, so being over 18 doesn't mean anything. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 18:26, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
  22. It's the more meritocratic choice. Dangerdan97 17:24, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
  23. --I feel as if I am jumping on a bandwagon, but I actually didn't see this discussion until yesterday. I believe if proper "screening" occurs, then there shouldn't be a problem :) TK-299 (Click Here) Imperial Emblem 12:54, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

Keep exception time the same

  1. The age limit was passed for a good reason, and it remains the same. Maturity is a vital characteristic in admins, and rushing minors into positions of authority is unnecessary and unproductive. The idea that anyone who's voted through will definitely be qualified, when no nomination has failed since 2007, more than three years ago, is ridiculous. Winning a vote does not prove you've got what it takes to be an administrator; that's the reason we have an RFRA process. Because it doesn't always work out. It's why we have prerequisites like this. There's no great shortage of admins, that we need to quickly make some emergency change to lower the time limit by six months so we can stuff whoever through now now now. Havac 02:27, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
    • Since I've taken some flack for saying that the users who pass votes aren't necessarily proving they're reliable admins: of the twenty admins passed since the last failure, eight are no longer admins, or a full forty percent. Of the last six to pass, three are no longer admins. Just of people passed last year, in 2009, two of four are no longer admins. One of the twenty, a former bureaucrat moreover, is now indefinitely banned. I think it's a bit presumptive to say the system is perfect at picking winners. Havac 03:26, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
  2. I think those RFA statistics are pretty telling. And quite vital in deciding just how successful the process is at this stage. I don't say this to reflect poorly on those who are former administrators—I understand that other people have other commitments elsewhere. I should know, I am among the eight. I'm also the last user to have failed an RFA. Now, I wasn't even consulted when that happened, but there's no way I had the emotional maturity to be a site leader. And I didn't have it when I succeeded in becoming an admin, hence my resignation 12 months later. Now, I'm not trying to say that other people have the exact same level of emotional maturity that I did at certain times in my life. That would be ludicrous. All I'm trying to say is that perhaps we should be a little bit less trigger happy with our RFAs, and I think that six extra months of experience for any minor is really vital. It shouldn't be really hurting those in question at all. It's just about patience—a key virtue in any site leader, I should think. Thefourdotelipsis 03:30, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
  3. I agree with Havac and Fourdot. Adminship is not an entitlement, and it is not a trophy. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 17:07, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
  4. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 20:24, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Yes, let's add some more entirely arbitrary numbers to our policies. --Imperialles 03:17, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
    • I'd like to point out that the current 2-year service requirement for minors is also an "entirely arbitrary number". —Master Jonathan New Jedi Order (Jedi Council Chambers) 03:31, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, indeed. My disagreement is with replacing one for the other, especially when there appears to be little to gain by doing so. I would rather see a wholly revamped system than randomly change what I perceive as minute details of the existing process. --Imperialles 04:13, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
  6. I am comfortable with accusations of ageism. The whole world is ageist, or else there wouldn't be minimum ages for voting, running for office, driving, entering into contracts, or engaging in many other activities. And I don't think the world is wrong for being that way. jSarek 01:10, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
  7. In this currently proposed form, no. I was originally going to vote no just because I felt that users would need two years in order to get the necessary experience to adequately manage the site, but I realized I personally only "worked" for one year before being nominated and still feel that was enough time to gain the needed experience. However, I really don't think that anyone under 15, regardless of experience, should administer the site, for a variety of reasons. With this proposed change, a 14-year-old could become an admin; while not much different than a 15-year-old, there can still be a big gap in maturity and experience dealing with others. (15 being the current floor for admin age with the 2-year requirement and 13-year-old user policy) —Xwing328(Talk) 05:58, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
    • I feel obliged to bring up the whole "if they're not mature they won't be elected" argument. Surely eighteen months is enough time to gauge a user's maturity dealing with others on the website (regardless of their real-life abilities, which I would say often have little relevance)? If it isn't enough for any particular user, then will they be elected or even proposed? And there's a big gap in maturity and experience dealing with others between an 18 and a 21 year old, or a 21 year old and thirty year old. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 15:53, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
  8. Per jSarek, I have no problem with having an age requirement. Per others, I don't see that there is a great need that changing this policy will correct. I also don't see how withholding adminship from anyone with less than 2 years of editing should inhibit their creativity or innovation in any way. As such, I vote against the change. --Eyrezer 10:29, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm not going to ask that people not create more voting options, but frankly I think it would be counterproductive to either slam the door shut or throw it wide open. Graestan(Talk) 01:55, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

  • It should be said that an admin does not have to be an admin forever once they are elected. A lot of the changes to the administration, especially the absentee removals, are proving that admins can easily come and go. I know on considerable authority that it was real-life issues that prevented several of our departing admins from participating at their previous levels on the site, and that they didn't consider the removal a slight against them. Does this mean they were unqualified and bad admins once they got in? Of course not. Everyone who has gone through the process has gotten down to the business of maintaining the website at the sysops level. Graestan(Talk) 04:20, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
    • I understand that fully, and I don't wish to impinge upon the quality of contribution or administration tendered by those who have left the post of administrator. What I am saying, though, is that perhaps we should be easing back on the accelerator when it comes to promoting people, instead of pushing down. Of course people can come and go, but I should think it would be better that we have a bit more solidarity in our administration. It's a revolving door, and it shouldn't be. There's no accounting for bad luck or RL commitments, of course, but I'd like to think that we would be trying to strive for a better hit rate here. 50% in the last 14 months isn't encouraging, especially when we're highlighting these users on our official blog and putting their promotion in the news and all that sort of thing. It's not a crippling problem, no, but I think it's a bit of a concern nonetheless, and I'm not sure that the answer to it is... more. Thefourdotelipsis 07:21, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd like to state, for everyone who bothers to read the Discussion section, why exactly I am proposing this change, which is an extremely minor change in the scheme of things. It is because I personally do not feel adminship should be restricted based on age. It is pure and simple ageism. I want the age limit removed if possible, but I know that it would be a sweeping measure for now, so this is all I can manage for those who may be deserving and would be useful with sysops but can't offer up either biological age or a longer period of continuous editing than the vast majority of users ever bother with in the first place. I am not up for "rewarding" anyone with adminship; as I have commented on with plenty of my previous admin nominations, admins are nominated based on needs. When I get online and see that the RCs aren't being patrolled very well, or different maintenance tasks are being neglected too often, I ask myself whether or not someone at the user level could be more helpful than they already are with sysops. I have been accused of personal motivation with this CT, which is total baloney. I am a bureaucrat, the only user on the site with CheckUser, and if I wanted to become an Inq or an AC again all I would have to do is work as hard as they asked me to before the next meeting. There is nothing left for me to gain. The site's interests are all I have in mind with this CT and with every other measure I have proposed. I do not accuse anyone else of having personal motivations, either. We all mean well here, and I think the best policies Wookieepedia could adopt are for us to stop saying "no" to people for illegitimate reasons. I am out to encourage the user base, not limit the site's ability to grow with it. Graestan(Talk) 21:46, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
    • ...wow. All that over an opinion I have about adminship being treated like a trophy? An opinion, I may add, was not directed at anyone in particular? Looks like I hit a nerve. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 00:00, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
      • Maybe that's because no one was saying it's a trophy, or something trivial that should be given out to everyone with 300 edits and a bit of knowledge of Wiki-formatting. Chack Jadson (Talk) 00:44, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
        • If you were to read beyond yours and my comments, StarNeptune, you might begin to understand that there was more being addressed in my last statement than your remark, which I easily dismissed with a link just below it. Your wording here, however, makes me wonder what your motives might actually be in this particular situation. Graestan(Talk) 03:40, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
  • What I don't understand is why, if there is a genuine need for more administrators, the selection is leaning just toward young users? Are the adults who regulary and satisfactorily edit the site less qualified? This CT makes it seem like only younger users are meeting the bar and the rules should therefore be changed to make them eligible for sysop rights. There are enough currently active adult users who are qualified and trustworthy enough to be granted sysop responsibilities without having to look soley at our just as active minors, if that makes sense.—Tommy 9281 14:57, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, I don't think it's that there aren't any adult users who would make good admins, but more that our new admins should be the best candidates possible, regardless of age. It's far more constructive to the site as a whole having excellent new admins, some of whom might be underage, than slightly less-excellent admins who are only all adults. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 15:53, June 4, 2010 (UTC)