Forum:CT:RFA Rule Change

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:RFA Rule Change

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 was no consensus, RFA rules will remain as they currently stand. -- Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 20:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


By consensus of the recent Mofference, a change to the rules for Requests for Adminship, more specifically the rule pertaining to age limits (which states that all candidates must be at least 18 years of age), is desired. Here will be decided the specifics of that change or whether or not a change is desired by the community at large.

Options

There were two possible alternate age limits proposed at the Mofference: 16 years and 17 years of age minimum.

Voting

17 years old

Vote to lower the age limit to 17 here.

  1. I'll be the lonely bastard. Besides, it's just a number, right? -- Riffsyphon1024 05:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

16 years old

Vote to lower the age limit to 16 here.

  1. Maturity seems unrelated to age on the Internet... Thefourdotelipsis 08:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Per Thefourdotelipsis. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 11:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Imperialles 15:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Per 4dot and comment below. Master Aban Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 15:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. I don't believe that an unsuitable candidate would pass RFA; I, for one, would give a younger candidate more scrutiny, to be absolutely certain it wasn't a mistake. And RFRA is a process that has not been utilized much, but I suspect that if we were to elect an unruly young admin and then came to regret it, the option would remain open. Graestan(Talk) 16:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. I recall supporting a vague "high-school age" guideline when this first came up, partly because we had one technically adept and sensible 17-year-old who I thought at the time would've been a decent admin. My opinion hasn't changed. —Silly Dan (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. The whole age requirement was never a really sound idea in the first place. It was a reactionary effort to snub a persistent minor who came up with a really ill-advised CT. In retrospect, I regret having voted on it at all. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 17:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. A 16 year old is generally as mature as they would be in two years. And it's not like a bunch of 12 year-olds who have about 50 edits would suddenly get nominated. Chack Jadson (Talk) 01:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Just to play devil's advocate here, Chack, but I would disagree, and I cite myself. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Call me slightly biased (as being one of the ones named), I feel led to this voting section. I too went "High School Age" on the last one. Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 04:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Per 4dot. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 09:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. Kuralyov 20:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No change

Vote for no change in the RFA rules here.

  1. Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 08:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 08:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. I really don't see why any change is needed. Havac 08:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. I still think the age of majority of most Western nations is a good bright line for adminship here. jSarek 11:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Per JSarek. Gonk (Gonk!) 13:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Green Tentacle (Talk) 14:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Greyman(Paratus) 15:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. I don't necessarily oppose the idea as a whole, but I don't really see the dire need. People have claimed that there are enough youths to warrant a change, but when asked to name people, no one could name more than two people (Jorrel and Chack). Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, I was an admin about 4 months before my 18th birthday. -LtNOWIS 03:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. I don't trust em. Period. I don't care about maturity. Very difficult to trust a 16/17 year old. --RedemptionRedemptionusersymbol(Talk) 02:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. --Eyrezer 09:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. I'm just not seeing the urgent need. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 15:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  12. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Unit 8311 17:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  13. —Xwing328(Talk) 17:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  14. I don't see how we're hurting ourselves by having it at 18. WhiteBoy 18:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  15. General agreement with the "what's the problem?" mentality. Wildyoda 05:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I could support a change if there are users that are highly qualified (which I believe there might be one). Then again there are some users my age (24-25) that should receive just-as-equal scrutiny in becoming an admin. Adminship should not just be doled out, though I am not suggesting that it has been. A change in the age requirements should not be viewed as a change in any other qualification. Master Aban Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 15:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

  • To be honest, I don't care either way, so I'm just not going to vote on this one. Although we do have a couple users who could definitely become admins, it also doesn't hurt if they have to wait a year or two. Hobbes(Tiger's Lair) 21:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Per Master Aban Fiolli.-- Darth Skirata Jedi Order (Talk) 23:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)