Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/DoomsDay349

message: User:DoomsDay349
      run at Wed May 30 04:45:56 2007 GMT
Category talk:	7
Category:	43
Image talk:	2
Image:	8
Mainspace	1585
Portal talk:	18
Portal:	71
Talk:	879
Template talk:	33
Template:	68
User talk:	955
User:	396
Wikipedia talk:	300
Wikipedia:	768
avg edits per page	3.49
earliest	01:34, 28 May 2006
number of unique pages	1470
total	5133
2006/5 	90 	
2006/6 	280 	
2006/7 	106 	
2006/8 	255 	
2006/9 	526 	
2006/10 	880 	
2006/11 	741 	
2006/12 	343 	
2007/1 	665 	
2007/2 	249 	
2007/3 	228 	
2007/4 	371 	
2007/5 	399 	
DoomsDay349's editcount summary stats as of 04:45, May 30th 2007, using Interiot's wannabe Kate's tool. (aeropagitica) 04:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

message: Why are people so upset that anyone could oppose for age?  For those who expect maturity and good judgment from an admin, it seems reasonable that it's difficult for an adolescent to qualify.  I'm not saying there isn't the odd youngster who can act like an adult, but absent specific evidence of "wisdom beyond their years", is opposing based on age such a bad thing?  Friday (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is a bad thing. First of all, we shouldn't know about his age. It is my opinion that he advertised it because he is mature beyond his years, and would like to surprise people with the fact that he is younger. Let's pretend for a moment that he didn't provide his age, and analyze the user as such. Now what? Wikidan829 01:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The point, in my eyes, is this. I totally agree with you that maturity and good judgment are crucial traits in an admin, and are certainly things that I look for in every candidate that I support. It is also entirely true that, at a population level, increasing age tends to be indicative of increasing maturity. However, the important thing here is that we are not working at a generalised population level; we are meant to be judging a specific candidate. Now that is the entire crux of it. We should be looking through each candidate's contributions and thinking are they acting with the maturity we would expect from an admin. If you think not, then by all means oppose on the basis of lack of maturity and, to be fair and constructive to the candidate, state your reasoning behind this decision. However, simple opposes that state no more than "because this user is X years old" greatly disappoint me. Of course, the fact that a candidate is young may mean you feel they need extra scrutiny. However, every candidate deserves to be judged based upon their actions on Wikipedia, rather than age or indeed religion, race, qualifications or anything else. As for your comment of requiring "specific evidence of wisdom beyond their years", well I would say that the simple fact that a candidate of a young age has done so much productively on Wikipedia sets them apart from most people their age. Basically, a young candidate should expect to be judged on the same maturity requirement of anyone else, but we shouldn't expect any more (or indeed less) from them because of their age. So, opposing because of an evidenced lack of maturity is fine, but opposing simply due to age and nothing more is just unfair. Will (aka Wimt) 02:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age?