Forum:CT:Slight amendment to the admin age requirements

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Slight amendment to the admin age requirements
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 Support proposal. Imperators II(Talk) 07:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey all, today I come to you with a proposed change to the admin age requirements. Currently, the Request for administrator rights section of the Request for user rights page states "They either are of adult age (18 years or older) or have one and a half years' worth of solid contribution to the site." and the Wookieepedia:Administrators pages states "Adult candidates (18+): at least six months of active contribution and Underaged candidates (13–17): at least eighteen months of active contribution" In my opinion, holding users to differing requirements based on age is unfair, and I'll note also that asking users to divulge their age would be against Fandom's Terms of Use. As such I propose that the section on the Request for User rights page be ammended to "They have at least one year of contribution to the site." and the section on WP:Administrators be ammended to "Candidates must have at least one year of contributions to the site." I've opted for one year, as that's the mid point between what's currently listed.

I've also removed the use of the word "solid" as well, as that's not something that can be qualified, and varies based on who you ask what constitutes a solid contribution.

Previous discussions on this topic can be found here. Forum:CT:Admin Age Wookieepedia:Mofferences/January 25, 2009 Forum:CT:Admin age exception Supreme Emperor Holocomm 21:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Support

  1. As proposer. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 21:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
  2. Make it even across the board, there's no reason to hold them to three times the amount. —SnowedLightning (they/them) 21:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
  3. Full support. LucaRoR Sigil of House Serenno (Talk) 21:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
  4. Yep. We don't need to know a new admin's age, so this is useless. OOM 224 (he/him) 21:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
  5. Racing to avoid Edit conflict NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 21:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
  6. We could as well get rid of all limits. An user without substantial experience is unlikely to be approved anyway. 01miki10 Open comlink 21:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
  7. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
  8. Manoof (he/him/his) RainbowRebellion2 21:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
  9. —spookywillowwtalk 21:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
  10. DarthRuiz30 (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
  11. Dropbearemma LesbianRebellion (she/her) 22:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
  12. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 22:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
  13. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 23:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
  14. Per Miki. Rsand 30 (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
  15. Miki and OOM both make excellent points Fan26 (Talk) 01:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
  16. Imperators II(Talk) 11:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
  17. ThrawnChiss7 Mitth symbol Assembly Cupola 14:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
  18. Lewisr (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
  19. Samonic Signatureicon (Villip) 16:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
  20. Dentface (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
  21. Herasoars(comms) 05:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
  22. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 06:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
  23. VergenceScatter (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
  24. Exiled Jedi (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

  • There are of course other things to tidy up regarding user rights, but this is a good starting point! Supreme Emperor Holocomm 21:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Miki makes a good point above. OOM 224 (he/him) 22:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)