Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JamieS93

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

JamieS93

[edit]

Final: (86/51/5); Closed at 23:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC) by Warofdreams (talk · contribs · rights · renames)

JamieS93 (talk · contribs) - Jamie has been a Wikipedian since November, and as I write this has 4444 edits in total. She is mostly an article writer, with particularly good work in the area of Christian music, with her two most worked on articles being Leeland (which is B-class) and Matthew West which is a good article. She is also a contributor to Spotlight, where she has done work on Thirty Years' War as well as other articles.

She also contributes to AfDs, and has closed a few of them already. She's also helpful to new editors, such as on the help desk and new contributors' help page. Additionally, I have recently seen her help out on Did You Know, which could always do with more admins watching it for updates. When I first came across her, she was one of those users who made me think "I thought she was one".

I offered to nominate her some months ago, but she declined. Now she has told me she will accept, which is excellent, since she will make an excellent admin. Majorly talk 18:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Co-nomination by Juliancolton I've known Jamie for a couple of weeks now, and we've talked quite a bit over IRC. During that time, I've followed her contributions, which I've been consistently impressed by. She is a great content builder, getting Matthew West to GA, and most recently (today) she helped contribute to Hurricane Karl (2004), a GA. Despite this, here work doesn't stop in the mainspace, as indicated above. Otherwise, Majorly pretty much covered everything. Overall, I think Jamie will make a great admin! –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination, and would like to thank my nominators for having faith in my potential. Jamie☆S93 20:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: As an administrator, I intend to mainly work with DYK updates and the deletion process, two areas where I feel that I have decent experience in. I would help out with the CAT:CSD backlog, closing AfD discussions, and doing the Did you know updates. After a little while I may also ease into some of the more straightforward cases of semi protecting articles or blocking sufficiently-warned vandals at WP:AIV, since I have done some vandal-fighting and AIV reports in the past.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Majorly gave a decent synopsis of my work on Wikipedia. In my own words, however, my best contributions would be article-writing with the Christian music WikiProject including Matthew West which was promoted to GA. I have also contributed to the area of DYKs and helping with update preparation. More recently, I joined WikiProject Tropical cyclones and minorly helped get Hurricane Karl (2004) to GA status. I’ve always enjoyed helping out other editors, especially our newer users, and have been able to exercise communication and explanation skills on Wikipedia through that.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I really haven’t had any major disputes or conflict of opinion with others on Wikipedia. Whenever there has been a rub with another user, I first always make sure that WP:CIV is kept in the forefront of everything. Second, fully explaining myself, citing policies and guidelines to back up my reason for an action, and encouraging further discussion if a compromise is needed in certain cases. If things get intense, stepping away from an issue for a few hours to keep a cool head and rational thinking always helps. Balanced communication is one of the most important aspects of resolving disputes, and as an admin I wouldn't treat having the tools as a distinction from others. For example, if a user were repeatedly personally attacking me to the point that they needed to be blocked, I would definitely ask another admin to handle it to avoid COI and possible use of "admin powers" to control people. That would simply go against the nature of trying to calmly negotiate opinions, so I think I'd handle conflicts about the same.
Additional questions from RMHED
4a.Which is the more important policy WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA? Please don't explain your answer.
A: WP:CIVIL.
4b.Which in your opinion is the most important Wikipedia policy? Again please don't explain your answer.
A: Other than WP:COPY for technical/legal reasons, I'd say WP:NPOV.
Comment: “for technical/legal reasons” constitutes an explanation. :-O —SlamDiego←T 21:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment: WP:IAR. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 19:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point in a question with only one answer? Tombomp (talk/contribs) 19:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4c.Do you consider Jimbo Wales to be the Founder or Co-Founder of Wikipedia? A one word answer will suffice
A: Co-founder.
Comment: This question about a historical event that took place before the candidate, or virtually any other editors participating in the RfA, had any involvement in Wikipedia, strikes me as putting this or any candidate in a "no-win situation" and therefore as unfair. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the question carefully you'll see it can be answered cleverly. RMHED (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, very clever RMHED. Looking for clue?--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 02:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that clever answer was the one I was expecting to see. Useight (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Yes" would have been better. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was hoping for as well. Avruch T 22:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from John Sloan (talk)

5. This is normally xeno's RfA question. However, I like it as well. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.
A. I view that having to face offensive language and personal attacks is simply part of the territory when dealing with vandalism. I've had some of it as a non-admin, and will strengthen to some degree if I were in the position to block a user.
As for the example: I would not grant the user's unblock request due to the fact that there is too much vandalism for one good edit tossed in there; 1 in 14 (I think) vandalizing edits is not enough to prove that this user wouldn't misuse their privilege. I'd decline the request explaining this reason, but invite the user to come back and constructively contribute to Wikipedia once the block's expired, giving them some basic information about the areas of Wikipedia. I'd also take the length of the block into consideration; in this case, one week isn't exactly a significant time span, and the user will hopefully coming back to make good dentistry edits.
6. This is normally NuclearWarfare's RfA question. But I beat him to it :D! Under what circumstances would you voluntarily give up your adminship/run for reconfirmation?
A. Since I'm not entirely familiar with a more formal recall system like WP:AOR and the issues it entails, I wouldn't step my foot in there. Instead, first off, I intend be open in general with others bringing to my attention any concerns they might have with my administrative actions; if that's the case I'd stop the action in question and take a step back to discuss it. If this continued and there were enough users seriously agreeing that I wasn't acting like an administrator should in any given case(s), I feel that on these grounds I would resign the position as an admin. I haven't put a label on any specific number or criteria, but if it were for the best of Wikipedia, and a clear portion of the community agreed together on it (beyond the level of simply a suggested wikibreak or slowing down), I would give back the mop. As I was saying, however, I would hope to prevent this kind of problem by overall being open to discussing conflicts with others and adapting my actions if needed. Like all aspects and areas of Wikipedia however, if it were for the good of the encyclopedia, I'd be willing to do it.

Additional questions from miranda:

7. What does BLP mean and why? When should one ignore the policy?
A. BLP is a policy meant to protect the biographies of living people from unsourced facts (especially negative ones). If the policy were to somehow get in the way of truly improving the encyclopedia, it could be ignored within reason. However, I have never actually seen a case where it was good to ignore that rule, so in general I'd say that it shouldn't be ignored.
8. Should IRC be used in order to make any decisions regarding GA reviews, policy violations, etc.? Have you ever used IRC in order to make these decisions (such as passing GA reviews)? And if so, how will that change when you are an administrator?
A. I feel that IRC should not be used to initiate any actual decision-making discussions such as GA reviewing as you were mentioning, or anything other than non-controversial duties or mild input and discussion with others about certain processes on Wikipedia. I personally use IRC to have some general Wikipedia discussion, getting quick links for things from the helpful folks there, or receiving casual input from others which may influence what I do in certain cases, yes. But instead I consider the suggestions I receive through IRC chat as merely opinions for less important actions that I do on Wikipedia. It definitely should not be used as a means of attaining some kind of consensus on an issue such as an article's content dispute. This is because it’s not recorded on Wikipedia, and it would be using something informal (IRC) for something serious or possibly controversial on Wikipedia. I hope that explains what your question was aiming at, thanks.
9. What does 3RR mean and why? When should one ignore the policy?
A. 3RR is a policy meant to prevent repeated unconstructive reverting and edit warring over two or more parties' non-vandalistic edits. In keeping with the BRD cycle, content disputes should instead be discussed between the two parties (with perhaps a third opinion), since endless reverting doesn't help the problem or get it anywhere. The only time that 3RR does not apply is when reverting vandalism, or if one party is inserting sensitive material like copyright violations or a clear BLP violation.

Optional question from RyanLupin (talk)

10. In what situation would you administer a cool-down block. This question is entirely optional.
A. First off, following the policy at WP:CDB, cool-down blocks shouldn't be used. As for my own application of that, I personally would not step into the area of WP:IAR to disregard a fairly important piece of policy. More importantly, it's based on reasonable logic that I agree with. Since blocks are meant to prevent damage to Wikipedia, I consider it this way: is the user(s) in question causing damage to Wikipedia? If their heated comments or actions are not breaching WP:NPA and remaining fairly civil, I see "cooling down" as an insufficient reason to block – it would agitate the situation, because one or more users would feel that their legitimate opinion is being ignored for the sake of arbitrarily keeping a discussion cool-headed. Granted, in many situations where users are getting hot-headed and angry, incivility or attacks come with the territory. A good reason for blocking would only be if incivility got too far, however, not just frustrating a good faith user by trying to cool things down.

Optional question from Jennavecia

11. Have you previously edited under another name?
A. No, this is the only account that I've used (I've never done any anonymous editing, either).

Optional question from Keepscases

12. Do you intend on attempting to become a Bureaucrat?
A: At this point, I do not see bureaucratship as any kind of future goal or something that I'd be attempting. After being an admin it would take quite a lot of time and experience before gaining community trust on that one, so it's too far into the future for me to determine if that would even be of interest to me to pursue.

Optional question from HG

13. You strike me as trustworthy and serious about contributing to Wikipedia. I share some of the concern expressed about your age, esp since you may find yourself in pretty tense conflicts. You also could benefit from more experience in some areas of interest (e.g., AfDs, see discussion above). On the other hand, I sense that you have the maturity to make great use of admin tools in a variety of situations already. Perhaps you would consider working with a well-established admin mentor as you make decisions about where to use the tools and where to develop your experience as an admin? Believe me, I'm not looking for a promise or for a conditional RfA. Still, if you'd find it beneficial to work with a mentor (or not), I'd like to hear about it. Thanks. HG | Talk 00:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: Yes, I believe some form of working with a mentor would be helpful. After this RFA closes, however, I'll probably just be spending a couple of months working in certain areas here and gaining experience. Sometime during the next few/several months however, it would probably be nice to have casual mentoring with an experienced admin, before the time comes for another possible RFA.

Optional question from Balloonman

14. Jamie, I started out supporting your and defending you against some of your critics. Unfortunately, your nom has significantly hurt your candidacy here in his actions, which isn't fair to you, but his actions have (negatively) affected the perception of this RfA. They have tied the label of immaturity to it and brought into question how well your nom's vetted you. At the same time, your response, Do I approve of his conduct with this RFA? No, I firmly don't. I simply did not think that accepting his nomination would cause much drama, however. There was a lack of keeping a cool head throughout this, and I seriously wish he hadn't "badgered the opposers" as much. While a little late does show maturity on your part. Can you provide other links to discussions where you have demonstrated maturity and wisdom that separates you from the pack? Show me, in your past actions/dealings, that you are mature enough for the bit and I will consider moving back to Support.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 21:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A. It's true that I don't have a lot of experience with that, but I can think of this interaction most recently – no real conflict here, but some difference of opinion. I was willing to come to a compromise if it were needed about the image placement issue, though, even when it was different than the normal formatting for that WikiProject's articles.

Optional questions from  Asenine 

15. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?
A:
16. As an administrator, many inexperienced editors will come to you for advice. Some of them will be highly puzzled as to what is going on, or even angry because of something that has happened to them in the course of their time here. It is important to keep a cool head and handle the situation well, and also be knowledgeable in how to resolve the problem; so I ask - can you give us evidence that you have successfully aided annoyed users in the past?
A:
17. Will your current activities continue if you are appointed with the mop and bucket? If so, which will you drop/be less active in/be more active in/take up?
A:

General comments

[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/JamieS93 before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
Are any of his questions? The "don't explain your answer" bit makes me wonder if he's just having a laugh.    SIS  23:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Question 4c seems particularly outrageous. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I posted my own reaction to that question above before I saw this portion of the discussion, and I agree with RyanLupin and Juliancolton on this aspect of the matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • I'd like to say a few things. First, I've closely read all of the comments that have been made on this RfA, and I appreciate the input from all who have participated – your opinions are valued and all taken into consideration. Quite a few of the Opposes, especially the more recent ones, have been very solid, strong reasons to object to giving me the mop, of course mainly due to my question answers and lack of experience. I realize those incorrect facts in more detail now, and I agree that if I were a participant in an RfA like this one I wouldn't be sure about trusting a candidate who didn't appear to know some of Wikipedia's more important policy. And yes, this request is certainly aiming for resulting as unsuccessful, which nearly caused me to withdraw since the opposition reasons and a portion of the community's lack of trust from has become clear. Still, I'm very grateful to the many who have supported me in this RFA and I will leave this to run its course at least for a little while longer.
  • In addition, I'm glad for nominations I received, although the process was not how I expected it would be. The talkpage turned into a couple of swirling arguments and the opposers didn't feel welcome, exactly. As for Majorly: In general is he a good nominator? I believed yes, and that's why I accepted this. Do I approve of his conduct with this RFA? No, I firmly don't. I simply did not think that accepting his nomination would cause much drama, however. There was a lack of keeping a cool head throughout this, and I seriously wish he hadn't "badgered the opposers" as much. At first I had a mindset of "let him do what he wants", but it did get to be further than I thought. Still, I'm thankful for his sincere support of my pursuing administratorship.
  • As I said, it's possible that I may withdraw this RFA, as it has become pretty clear that there's a little crowd of concerns, but I have taken away a unique experience from this. After it's over, I'll be resuming my editing like normal, and have some constructive objections to think over and gradually work on to become a better editor.  :-) Sorry for being kind of long-winded. Thanks to all, Jamie☆S93 04:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've probably spent more time reviewing her than most people. And trust me I'll go back and re-review her this evening when I have more time. I'm asking her to show me her best stuff. 'm giving her the chance to show me what she has. When I looked at her the other day, albeit casually, I didn't see any warning bells, but nothing that stood out as dealing with conflict or maturity. But even if I spent 6 hours reviewing her, I might not see anything, I want to give her the chance to show me something I might miss.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 23:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I have gone through her edits in great detail, I am still interested in her responding to my question. It is possible that I missed something. A few months ago I nomed somebody (not H20) and found out during the Opposes that the candidate had a major issue that I didn't know about. It shocked me because I had spent HOURS going over the candidate and missed something that was staring me in the face. The same thing could happen here.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 16:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
[edit]
  1. Jamie will make a great admin! Majorly talk 18:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support. Kind editor and great article writer. Very experienced with Wikipedia and will be a major help to the DYK backlog. Good luck, Cunard (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - likes High School Musical :p Seriously, support. Sceptre (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - Great interaction, although I had no idea she was female... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Good editor. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 21:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, based on my interactions with her, I have found her to be a very mature user who will be an asset as an admin. We need more DYK admins, we've lost two in the last few weeks. Maxim (☎) 21:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support No good oppose reasons so far.--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 21:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Even if some people think otherwise, I think age is not a reason to oppose. This user seems to behave more like an adult than many users here who are legally adults. As far as I could see, this user is civil and helpful and knows her work around Wikipedia. I also think that users who adopt others and work at the help desk show a certain willingness to help other users. Note: I may change this vote pending further questions. SoWhy 21:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Appears to be a trustworthy, level-headed user with no visibly troublesome contributions. Best of luck. —Mizu onna sango156Hello! 21:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ecx2)Weak Support the weak comes more from my laziness as compared to any real issues that I identified with the candidate. From my quick review, it looks as if this user is respected and her input is sought out... those are overriding criteria in my book. While I would have liked to have seen more wikipedia/wikipedia talk contributions this wasn't enough for me to go neutral over. Also, while I generally pay more attention to younger candidates, age is not the sole guideline for maturity. Finally, if this doesn't pass (Even if it does) might I suggest responding to conversations on the page where they originated? It makes following conversations much easier---especially when multiple people get involved in the conversation.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 21:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Changing to oppose---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 20:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support As co-nominator. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Good editor. No reason to oppose.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 21:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support – Kid? Yes. Behaves like one? Definitely not. —Animum (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support my first editor review was from her (I completely thought you were a guy, though!) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 22:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. naerii 22:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - Don't let the ageist editors get to you. The fact you choose to disclose your age is admirable. People should consider looking at their maturity level rather than their age. After all, if she never said she was high-school-age there would never be such a dispute. CL — 00:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - Nothing alarming. Looks good to me. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Yes If I knew of this, I would ask to co-nominate. Amazing job in Spotlight, and I can't say anything about age because I'm younger.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  01:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Excellent editor who seems to continue finding new ways to support the project. I believe every indication is that she will utilize the tools responsibly. (Disappointed by the haters ageists.)   user:j    (aka justen)   01:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - looks good to me.   jj137 (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - My experience with her on DYK has only been positive, both from seeing her work as a reviewer and as a contributor. Her articles have been solid, well-written and well-referenced. I can't see how she'd have a problem being an admin. Daniel Case (talk) 02:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - I think she'll be a great admin, and... the ageism opposes. --Coffee // talk // ark // 02:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. YES. Absolutely yes. If I had known about this, I would have co-nommed. Great editor. X! who used to be Soxred93 02:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong Support Of course. Burner0718 Jibba Jabba! 03:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Although she's a new editor to WP:WPTC, she has already proven to be a considerable asset to the WikiProject, and to Wikipedia at large. I'm also rather disappointed in the ageist opposition. I was promoted to admin when I was still "not an adult", and I didn't burn the barn down. I find it against the spirit of WP:AGF to oppose for that reason without any effort to find evidence that a candidate is not suitable due to any other circumstance. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Has done excellent work for the project. --PeaceNT (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strong Support - Opposing someone based on their age is downright silly, its like ," Hi I'm 90 years old"..ohh no ..you are too old to be an admin..If you really can't find a valid reason to oppose, don't vote at all...I have known Jamie for a long time, and I trust her to use the tools wisely..Just look at this and tell me how many of those were actually "kids"?...Looking at her userpage, you can see that she is devoted to the Project, we need those type of people.and not those that never make any real contribution to mainspace..--Cometstyles 05:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - due to strong positive interactions with the candidate. Additionally, I feel that age can be a very impresice mechanism with which to calculate maturity. Gazimoff 10:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support — Looks like a good editor to me, with none of the issues that sometimes prevent good editors from becoming good admins. I feel that age is an issue only insofar as it impacts judgment — and in the oppose section, I see no major lapses of judgment that would be unacceptable for an administrator. Very unlikely to harm the project in any way, and very likely to continue contributing to it in whatever capacity she chooses. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 10:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, I've had a look, and I see no reason to believe that this user would abuse the tools. Without looking at her user page, I would not have been aware she was a teenager, and she has so far displayed admirable maturity and good judgement. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  30. Strong support: Her work with the Spotlight is amazing, and she would almost certainly not misuse the tools Dendodge|TalkContribs 11:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Trust Majorly. Net positive. Ageism is not a valid oppose rationale. I'm really surprised to see this keep cropping up in light of the capable admins and crats we have who we would not under this age based rejectionism. Also, one need not have a GA or an FA, or even be a strong article builder to wield the mop. When you come down to it, most deletion or block decisions are pretty obvious. If the candidate has any doubt, she seems bright enough to seek advice or to discuss with those more knowledgeable, seek consensus at WP:AN/I, etc. Does not seem likely to go berserk, block out of spite or anger, or delete the main page. Cheers, and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 13:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    PS AFD is a consensus building discussion. Sometimes the discussion becomes intense. The candidate's ability to benefit the project with the tools should not be lost due to the nominator engaging in brisk debate with an opposer. It does not "punish" anyone for "bad behavior." It merely denies the project the use of the candidate's full capabilities. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Obviously, the candidate will need to refrain from making any mistakes, ever, seriously, if they wish to be a successful administrator. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC) Snake! It's a Snake! Oh, no, it's a snake![reply]
  34. Strong support per nom, willingness to adopt and welcome new users, and overall sense of genuineness and maturity. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Strong support - Not just per nom by Majorly, but by personal feelings. I know Jamie well, and I really feel that she should be an administrator. To reply to Sandy, I had 4 GAs and 1 FA at the time of my RFA. I really doubt that's a really good reason to oppose. Also, to the ageism folks, does AGE mean EVERYTHING to you??? That is ridiculous. I am a high school student, and I passed as one as well. Age should not be a reason to oppose, even for freaking high school. If it was a 9-year-old I may see a problem, but there are adults who don't act as maturly as some teenagers do. Good luck, Jamie.Mitch32(UP) 14:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support — How many teenagers have started a war? Matthew (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Joan of Arc? Useight (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Gavrilo Princip. Jon513 (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Gavrilo Princip doesn't count... he had just turned 20 at the time. ;-)---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 21:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    David Lightman. --JayHenry (t) 05:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Strong Support - a great article writer and can be trusted. I see no reason not to approve --T-rex 15:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support You have my support. Bstone (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support per 1) answers to questions and 2) disagreement with reasons to oppose listed below (particularly the maturity issue - the candidate has handled this RFA and the comments herein confidently, openly, and appropriately). Townlake (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Strong support. I've had nothing but positive interactions with JamieS93, and I disagree with almost all of the opposes. So what if she isn't a certain age - she has shown exemplary judgement in my view, and that qualifies her for the tools. I'm pretty disgusted at how this turning out, to be honest, although I'm not going to go into details, but here we have a user who is more than qualified for it, and we're denying her adminship. People complain when people don't have enough GAs, and here we are with an editor who focuses mainly on building the encyclopedia, but doesn't have a big pile of GAs to show for it (Jamie is obviously an editor who focuses on the drive-by cleanup tasks), and I think thats as good as any number of GAs. Strong support, good luck. :) Qst (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Strong Support Not a problem with this user being an admin. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 15:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support as good article contributor and due to no memorable negative interactions. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. JamieS93's answers to questions and conduct during this RfA have been very good, and I'm not seeing any immaturity in them whatsoever. In fact, if she hadn't admitted she was in high school, no one would have guessed how old she is. Regarding Majorly's "badgering", I feel that is a word that is used way too often: we are supposed to discuss in RfAs, and labeling comments and responses as "badgering" does not contribute to a healthy atmosphere. By posting this support, I know and understand that someone may want to respond to me, and I welcome that. This user has contributed positively to the encyclopedia and will be a positive admin. Acalamari 16:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support A good user who has done some article work (1 GA is fine for me and the article work is hardly some isolated incident; higher standards are fine, but 4 opposes about this is a little unusual), is reasonably mature (there are a decent amount of people on WP who are generally immature and it's not totally linked to age), because their conduct is great (opposing because the nominator tried to discuss a vote says nothing about the candidate) and because they don't use IRC as a social networking tool or a place to make decisions. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 16:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support as a great editor, with great goals. She has exemplary judgement skills and maturity, even if some of her peers don't. Good luck, Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 16:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Switch to Oppose[reply]
    Hmm I wonder who your talking about ;) Alexfusco5 17:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    :) Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Very good editor and no reason she isn't trustworthy Alexfusco5 17:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - seems fine to me. :) —AySz88\^-^ 17:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support–awesome editor, great person--danielfolsom 19:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Having looked over this user's contributions, I find an editor who is generally conscientious, incredibly civil, and genuinely concerned about the way the encyclopedia appears to the most important people - the non-contributing readers. While mistakes have been made, she is contrite and seems sincere about learning from them. I can find no evidence supporting the idea that the tools would be misused. JamieS93 has my trust, and full support. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 19:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Ridicoulously intense and honest Support. Don't worry! You'll get it! --creaɯy!Talk 21:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Strong Support I believe Jamie is ready to be an definitely admin, and I don't buy the reasons given by the opposition (i.e.: age) « Diligent Terrier [talk] 22:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Strong Support. I'm familiar with JamieS93's editing, and I know she's ready for the mop. Good luck! Malinaccier (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. I'm familiar with Jamie, enough to know she is a thoughtful and careful editor. Leaving aside things such as low edit count to project namespace, I've found her answers to be very thoughtful for not editing there. For example, many of the opposer's are citing her answer to BLP as wrong (even when she says in general she thinks it should never be ignored/IAR), which I disagree with. I've also put some thought into her choice for nom's. While I think that she should have known the potential controversy for accepting from Majorly, I'm willing to assume that she thought it shouldn't matter who presented her. Majorly obviously does not speak for her, so opposing this should not be a rationale in and of itself (Majorly: when will you learn that there is a time to remain silent, and a time to speak out? Don't you realize that your actions periodically run counter to your intentions?). And lastly, age. This means nothing. We already have admins who are her age, and do quite well. Her actions and behavior here have been excellent, so I see no issue with maturity. Synergy 11:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Strong support per this. Despite only being a teenager, which is not really a big deal. This user is by far one of the most mature, level headed users on this project and to be honest, she puts a lot of the current sysops to shame! Good luck Jamie, and if this fails. Please try again, because you have to pass this joke of a process one day! Happy editing :-) John Sloan (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Age is a huge and prejudicial red herring. Some admins get better with age, some get worse. I see no reason to believe that this one would get worse, and if she gets better, that will be good indeed. Good luck, Jamie, however this turns out. --Abd (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. I like JamieS93's statement in the discussion section above enough that I will support, support Hiberniantears (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support The whole age thing is very unfair. Animum is 13 and he is a good admin... Why would a 15-year-old be worse? ≈ MindstormsKid 15:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. This is not going to pass, but you have my support. Everything looks good. A little low on communication in the Wikipedia Talk arena, but other than that, I think you'd be okay. Useight (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support I wasn't sure, balancing a comprehensive Interiot count against a lack of editing experience (the type that comes with extended exposure to the environment), until I reviewed the deleted contributions section. Very, very few blue links indicating an excellent grasp of what is and what is not suitable content. As for everything else, it can be learned while on the job. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support with Admin Coaching: I've interacted with this user on IRC for some time now. Seems to be a good content builder. I don't believe her age bothers me too much, since I've seen current administrators who are only 13 years of age. The oppose vote regarding the AfD votes does bother me slightly, but I'm sure there's a better explanation for that. Administrators aren't perfect, and punishing a person's age rather than the ability to contribute and the depth of these contribution bothers me as well. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 17:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. This may end up being an moral support, but if it's a real one I'll be happy with the outcome. I like what I see here; even though I think Icewedge makes a strong point, I see helpful, constructive work in the project namespace, and a steady, consistent approach to AfD. It seems to me that JamieS93 is very unlikely to misuse the tools, and very likely to use them to the benefit of the encyclopedia. That said, I urge her to fill in the holes in her knowledge of policy pointed out in the oppose section. Darkspots (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Reasonable answers. Good contributions. Axl (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. Nothing to indicate that they'll abuse the tools. Age is irrelevant. Celarnor Talk to me 20:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Strong article work, good answers to questions. Physical age, in my experience on Wikipedia, has little to do with the maturity affected here: witness the 13-year-old competent admins, and the thirty-year-olds who throw a hissy fit if My Own Personal Article is deleted. --Wikiacc () 22:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. I don't really see why not. Age isn't the issue here, the issue is will she get the job done and my belief is that she will.-Red4tribe (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. good 'pedia builder. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Weak Support I've been back and forth on this one for days. I'm echoing Darkspots and a couple of the other supporters; certainly not perfect policy knowledge, but we're all human. For me, it came down to Jamie having a very sensible head on her shoulders, and the ability to know when she might be getting in over her head in any way and to know where she still might need a bit of help. She's clearly displayed the determination and commitment to this project that I like to see from potential admins, and the age thing doesn't faze me all that much. Good luck. :) GlassCobra 04:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Would have breezed through the RfA process if she hadn't voluntarily revealed her age. I see nothing at all to suggest that she is incapable of handling the tools. faithless (speak) 04:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Good contributions, and while I see no real need for the tools I also see no evidence that the user will not abuse them. AniMate 05:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support For all the reasons cited above, but also in opposition to User:Badger Drink's long winded attack below. --GoRight (talk) 05:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Seems like a reasonable person. Haukur (talk) 06:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Weak Support Please don't become discouraged if this doesn't pass. Keepscases (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support I liked these well reasoned comments about your RfA. RMHED (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support - I see nothing to warrant an oppose. GtstrickyTalk or C 00:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support - per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions#User is X. Macy 00:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support per Acalamari, and to contradict the ageist opposes. LittleMountain5 review! 02:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. The candidate seems to me like they would be a net positive for the project. Not convinced that any of the opposes amount to any kind of serious problem. SQLQuery me! 07:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. I think she would make a great admin —— RyanLupin • (talk) 12:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Strongest support I would have (co)nominated but there are enough noms already. I'm glad I get a chance to say this in an open forum - Jamie is an extraordinary contributor. I was one of the first contributors to notice Jamie's work and I've been following her since then. We have worked together a lot on Christian music articles. I don't even bother to look over her edits on articles because I know that they are ALWAYS high quality. I recently gave some constructive criticism in a peer review on her first GA, and she was real receptive and eager to learn - just like I was at my first GA attempt. I know that others are concerned about her age, but be assured that it doesn't show up in her work. Our interactions have show her to be very professional and I am certain that she would make a great admin. My experience with her has been first class, and I believe she is ready join the list of admins. Royalbroil 19:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Big Support to spite the opposition. If you remove this vote (you should), remove all the others that go age-age-age and nothing else. --harej 07:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support She'll do fine. I see no reason to oppose. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support, I see no apparent reason not to support. --Kjetil r (talk) 00:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support -- regardless of age. Best, --Cameron* 08:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support - Good article work, very mature, hope to see you here again sometime. :) Sunderland06 (talk) 00:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support - I personally don't believe age should be something to oppose about in any RfA what-so-ever. !Voters should be looking at RfA candidates as Wikipedians, not age. IMHO, Jamie shows the most maturity and civility I've seen in a while. When I first met her, probably when I saw her name around T:TDYK or WP:AFD, I thought she was an adult. Though, getting to know her more, I was surprised she was only 15. Jamie is very dedicated to the project from what I've seen, always working at music-related topics. As one of my main areas is WP:DYK, I have seen and noticed her work around that area as well. I'm sure she'll be able to help update T:DYK. DYK certainly needs some more active updaters, having lost two active ones recently because of them being desysoped. I see no instance or evidence where she will misuse or abuse the tools. By the looks of this RfA, its mostly likely not going to be unsuccessful, unfortunately. :( But Jamie, you have my utmost support. Always remember that us supporters think you will be a good admin. You should be proud of the many supporters you have, and what you have done to Wikipedia! We'll always be there rooting you on, no matter if your an administrator or not! So continue your work at Wikipedia, you've done great things for this encyclopedia, sharing the gift of knowledge to our readers, making positive changes to our world. That's why we're here, ain't it? :) Kind regards, -- RyRy (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support - After a good think I have decided to support. I think overall you have the maturity, civility, and enough experience for an admin. You could help out a lot with admin actions in the areas you contribute. While I respect where the age based opposes are coming from they are very much generalising and your contributions can rebuttal them. Your amount of article writing does not concern me either. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. I had thought prior to my impromtu resignation of my administrator bit, that the RfA proccess was on its way to recovery, with hardly any horrifically, injustifiably unsuccessful RfAs in recent memory. Evidently, I was wrong. Pedro makes good points on WT:RFA that with the development of the project that admins have to become more associated and familiar with the site and its workings to be even considered for the role of being an administrator. Since when GAs/FAs mean that your account is less likely to be compromised and/or means your more likely to ruin the international reputation of Wikipedia is, well, beyond me. JamieS93 has some very good contributions and is responsible from what I've seen her do, with some good answers aswell. I really disapprove of people coming to an RfA with the mindset that they should oppose until they can prove otherwise. They seem to think that perhaps that someone has got an opppose, so by default, there is something wrong with the candidate. RfA is a discussion and a discussion involves opinions, not always facts. So, instead of 'piling-on' or whatever the fashionable term is nowadays, why don't we really assess the candidate and reflect upon interactions that we've had with them (unless you can't relate to that) instead of following others and cutting off your nose to spite your face. Rudget 17:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well said Rudget, very well said. If only there were more Wikipedians that thought like that on RfA Alexfusco5 17:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, very good comment. I really miss such comments these days... SoWhy 17:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support BhaiSaab 19:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC) User:BhaiSaab is indefinitely banned Plutonium27 (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Kid admins have generally poor judgement, and bring the project into disrepute. Friday (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC) PS I've made extensive comments elsewhere, but just to clarify just a little bit: I've seen no sufficiently compelling evidence of unusual maturity. I understand that exceptional youngsters exist, but I cannot accept the hand-waving arguments that this implies that this youngster is exceptional. Friday (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion moved to talk page. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - High school? Too young, sorry. I'm not saying being under 18 equals being immature but I do believe that admins should have more life experience than a high schooler. They'll mostly be dealing with people who are adults, after all. That's not ageism, that's realism. Also, the 93 in her username (and the 90 in the username of her real-life sister WordyGirl90) lead me to assume she's born in 1993. In other words, 14 or 15 years old. If I knew for a fact she's 14 I would have voted "strong oppose".    SIS  00:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See also talk page.    SIS  02:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose as I would be rather surprised if this user has ever made a useful contribution to WP:AFD. By this I mean she has never ever, not once participated in an AFD where the article was not obviously notable/unnotable or consensus was not already clear. To illustrate this I will go over her last ten !votes to AFD's.
    This pattern extends as far back into her contribs as I a searched, I did notice that her input became more somewhat useful the farther back (that is weird, people should generally become better over time, not worse) but I had to go back to April before I found any input that I actually thought helped flesh out consensus.
    This !vote will most likely change later depending if anything else is brought up; If my reason is still the only one to be found here in the oppose section in a few days time I will probably !vote support but I am just not sure how well you learn WP:N by jumping on the banwagon. - Icewedge (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If I understand correctly, editors aren't allowed to !vote in AfDs that have had previous !votes? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess you don't understand correctly and I am sorry if my comment is hard to understand. What I am saying is that voting in an AFD where 10 users have already voted to delete and none have voted to keep is not very helpful. What good does it really do? That article is obviously going to be deleted so how does having the delete counter at 11 instead of 10 improve the encyclopedia. Such votes are not necessarily bad, but the fact that such behavior seems to be her only input to AFD is not so good. An admin should have experience with controversial AFDs and close call closes. Any user with 10 edits could correctly close something like this correctly, what we need are admins who know what to do with an AFD like this. - Icewedge (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still slightly confused. AfD is an attempt to gain consensus of whether an article needs to be deleted. Consensus doesn't and shouldn't have a limit as to how many people can engage in the discussion. More !votes simply push consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it better to have an article deleted 10:0 or 1000:0? Neither. Once consensus has been established there is not much point reinforcing that consensus. Thats sort of by the wayside though, my main point is that admins should be able to make close calls and as this user has never participated in an RFA where the result was anywhere new ambiguous I am not sure that she can. - Icewedge (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But many of the references you provided were one's where she was one of the first 3-4 people to participate in the XfD. I don't see that as waiting until consensus is finalized.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 01:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    True, in some there were not yet overwhelming numbers but it was already clear what the final result was going to be. Again, the fact that she participates in such AFDs is not a bad thing, it is the fact that she only participates in such AFDs. - Icewedge (talk) 01:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I noticed that as well, but I thought to myself, that an admin needs to be able to judge consensus and act upon it, not create consensus in the first place. If we think of admins as janitors (with the mop), their job is to clean up, not to create the mess. So I decided to support instead of going neutral or oppose because of that. SoWhy 11:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps the evidence suggests that she has experience in recognizing an emerging consensus in some AfD situations and, presumably like many candidates, would benefit from experience in AfDs where consensus is more difficult to analyze. HG | Talk 13:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose My one interaction with Jamie was her poor judgment call on a recent DYK nomination I put forth (a senior editor immediately overrode her and took a rare step of chastising her take on inline referencing). Her enthusiasm to help the project is commendable, but her RfA is extremely premature. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Eco, could you provide a link to this?---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 01:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A couple of links that might help: the discussion at T:TDYK was here (last revision of the discussion). And the related user talk page comments were here. Thanks, Jamie☆S93 01:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Jamie... so a mistake was made... it isn't the first time and won't be the last. I think she was civil in admitting her mistake. I don't see anything in the ref's to indicate a fallacy that warrants an oppose (unless you there is something not disclosed in Jamie's links?)---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 01:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your input is noted, B-man, and my vote remains in this category. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose, the editor is presented as mostly an article writer, but has no article above B class has only one GA and no evidence of strong content contributions. There isn't enough to go on here as far as knowing enough about this editor; if article writing is her strong suit, we should see some strength in that area. And this from her nominator isn't a strong endorsement: "I've known Jamie for a couple of weeks now, and we've talked quite a bit over IRC." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Er... she has a GA (Matthew West) expanded from a three-line stub. Her edits are mostly content contributions. You can't be serious saying she's weak in this area - it's her main area. Majorly talk 04:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck and re-phrased (unclear why you highlighted B-class in the nom blurb, Majorly). One GA, however, doesn't substantially change my concern, considering she is presented as a content contributor, and one of her noms appears to barely know her. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One can be a content contributor without gaining trophies and medals in the form of GAs and FAs. A B-class article is an article in decent shape. And what do the nominators have to do with anything? This isn't requests for whether my nominators know me well or not-ship. It's adminship. Please evaluate the candidate on whether they'd make a good admin, not on other irrelevant things. Thank you. Majorly talk 05:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't badger my oppose; I support candidates who demonstrate competency, immersion and excellence in whatever it is that they do best, and to the extent that enough people know them, know their work, and know we can trust them with the tools. This candidate presents an mainly a content contributor, so I expect to find a solid record of contributions to articles, and strong statements from people who know her work in that area. Yet, she has significant contributions to only two articles, and one of her nominators appears to barely know her. From what I see on her userpage, I have no doubt that she is the type of editor who will earn my support once she has gained more experience, and has the maturity to realize that you don't accept an RfA nomination from someone who barely knows you. Nominating someone after a couple of weeks of chatting on IRC sets off all kinds of warning signs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't ask me not to "badger" you. You've made false statements and evaluated the candidate on something that's no fault of their own. I'm not going to stand by and watch the candidate I nominated get shot down with false comments from people. If you insist on opposing, at least get your facts right before commenting. Majorly talk 05:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm in complete agreement with Majorly here. You can be one of the best article writers on Wikipedia and have few to no GAs to show for it. Just because an article worked by on by a devoted article writer, in this case, it is JamieS93, is't a GA or FA doesn't mean to say its not of a high standard. She doesn't need badges on her userpage to show she's a good article writer. Qst (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. Sandy sums it up perfectly, so I won't repeat it. – iridescent 03:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See my response to SandyGeorgia. Majorly talk 04:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Having read it (and the other support arguments) I stand by this. This RFA has got sidetracked by the age issue when it should be about ability and experience – I wholeheartedly think we need more content-driven admins, and fewer policy-wonks; I'm perfectly satisfied Jamie isn't the latter but not that she would be the former. – iridescent 15:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per SandyGeorgia. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See my response to SandyGeorgia. Majorly talk 04:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read your response and I will not change my !vote. Jamie has made more than 50 edits to only two articles. An article builder should do more than that. If article building is meant to be your trump card, I want you to make at least 100 edits to two articles, and contribute 9 DYKs (create/expand) or 3 GAs or 1 FA. She has made ten or more than ten edits to only one talk page. However, Jamie is a fine editor and I will support her in future. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak Oppose If article building is meant to be your trump card.... Also lack experience with dispute resolution/consensus building on disputed material/articles. — Realist2 04:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. I hope you won't take this personally, Jamie, as you are obviously a great editor, and I thank you for your contributions. But given the substantial real-life impact admin decisions can have, I feel that non-adult editors should not be admins unless they have already demonstrated exceptional suitability for the job. The reasons above indicate that this is not yet the case here. In particular, I would expect a length of service of more than two years and/or an edit count in excess of 10'000, as well as profound experience in most areas of Wikipedia administration, from a non-adult candidate.  Sandstein  05:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Per Sandy, I'm afraid. (Yes, I've seen Majorly's response.) —Giggy 07:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose, I'm concerned about knowledge of some admin areas you want to work in. Of the few AIV reports you've made, at least two ([1] [2]) were reported as "vandalism after final warning" when that had not taken place, the users had stopped vandalising after a level 3 or 4 warning had been given, then you reported them anyway. Combined with the lack of meaningful contributions to AfD that Icewedge highlighted, I'm afraid I'm just not seeing much evidence you really understand our blocking or deletion policies particularly well. I'll happily say your article contributions are well-done and you're a great Wikipedian, just not one I'd be entirely happy with as an administrator at the moment, sorry. ~ mazca t | c 12:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per Sandy and Majorly. (I initially wanted to put as such, but oh well, was afraid what consequence would be waiting for me. Too bad for the candidate) --Caspian blue (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose, reluctantly. Age is irrelevant, but Sandy, Icewedge and Mazca all make good points; I'm not seeing enough evidence that this (otherwise excellent) editor has a sufficient grasp on the policies that they will need to know. Black Kite 12:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose - per age and (lesser so) Majorly's badgering of opposes. Qb | your 2 cents 12:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You have all right to oppose, but I think you should not base it on Majorly's actions but only on JamieS93's. It's not her fault how Majorly decides to comment and she cannot control it and thus it should not reflect negatively on her. SoWhy 12:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not helping Jamie, Majorly. You taint her with your badgering. Qb | your 2 cents 16:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The only ones causing problems round here are the ones who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about when it comes to deciding if someone should be an admin or not. Neither of your reasons are anything to do with the candidate or adminship, so quite deservedly should be "badgered" because they aren't fair on the candidate. It's more you than me that's causing the issue. If you'd just give a proper reason for your vote, this "badgering" wouldn't be necessary. But, since you fail to, it is unfortunately needed. Majorly talk 21:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per mazca as well as the answer to Xeno's usual question. Any admin should never decline an unblock request to a block that they themselves made. Also, seriously guys, age doesn't matter. Think of every editor in this wiki as anonymous. In fact, that's why many of us made accounts to begin with, to be anonymous. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 15:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose I would like to see more experience before I would feel comfortable supporting. MBisanz talk 15:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Per Sandy and Icewedge. Nothing really strongly sets me against this editor, and its likely that if she returns for another RfA at some point in the future she will have easily addressed the concerns I have relating to evidence of judgment. I do want to say that Majorly's conduct on this page and the talkpage (or rather, whats been moved to the talkpage) is damaging the candidate's chances. Avruch T 16:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose For lack of experience and understanding of the relevant policies, Age has nothing to do with it--there are some excellent admins in HS and some much older ones who are nowhere near as competent or mature in the relevant dimensions. DGG (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose Per Friday and SandyG. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose. Overall, I agree with Friday that young teenagers should not be administrators due to maturity issues. To overcome this objection, I'd expect to see some truly excellent collaboration skills and in-depth knowledge of policy, and I don't think that this editor is at that point yet. Continue working on articles, continue learning about policy, and don't be in a hurry. Karanacs (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I ask for all votes based on ageism to be discounted? --T-rex 19:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Karanacs is saying that she would support despite her misgivings about age if other factors outweighed those misgivings, and that those other factors are not present. I think you did not pick the best oppose at which to make your blanket request, T-rex. Darkspots (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Others have been more blatant, but when you open with "teenagers should not be administrators", it is kidnof hard to assume good faith. --T-rex 14:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course you can ask, you can also ask to have ALL opposed discounted! The fact remains, as has been pointed out on the talk pages, there are very real and valid concerns about age.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 14:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They are not valid. Not one opposer has provided any evidence whatsoever that younger admins are bad ones. Not a single one. As I asked Friday on talk, if such editors bother you so much, propose all underage admins be desysopped (we have several you know, scary thought huh?) Majorly talk 15:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    have you not read anything I've written on the talk pages? Also, if you want to persist in the badgering, please do so on the talk pages.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 15:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're the one badgering T-rex here... if you going to start a discussion, don't complain if someone replies. Majorly talk 15:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But there are no concerns about age. This has yet to ever be an issue. Also I could have asked for all opposes to be discounted, but that would be dumb and silly (although not much less rational then most of these opposes) --T-rex 15:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose per Icewedge and Giggy. AfD work isn't good, and your article work is lacking. I usually could care less wether candidates are good article writers, but if you claim it to be your specialty you better have something to show me. The answer to Xeno's question bothers me too, shouldn't decline an unblock request on your own block. And, to be completley honest, I have such little faith in Majorly's judgement that the fact that he is your nominator is a red flag as well. Age doesn't bother me though.--KojiDude (C) 20:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, but does my co-nomination outweigh Majorly's judgment? :) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's definetly a good sign, but I still have the chills. :-/ --KojiDude (C) 20:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose — Sorry, but too young. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose per Koji and all of the others that have gone before him. But Majorly's nom and subsequent behavior here and elsewhere taint his judgment when it comes to RfA's. I was trying to overlook my dubiousness of his nom, but Koji and QB are right, his judgment is suspect and Julian's nom can't overcome that deficeincy.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 20:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    moving response to Major to talk page.
    Well, Majorly doesn't think my oppose is valid because I cited another person's rationale. I cited per Koji and all of the others that have gone before him. So let's see what Koji had to say:
    • AfD work isn't good I looked at every one of your wikispace edits. 90% of your contributions to AFD are simply adding the category. You have to go back to April before you find a single AFD where you differed from what other people said. Then the only reason why you fought to save it was because it was a Christian Rock Group and you belong to the the Wikiproject that governs it.
    • and your article work is lacking. Many people including SandyGeorgia cited this as a reason to oppose. But how true is it? Well, there are only two articles where she has more than 30 edits... and for a content builder she has an average of 1.59 edits per page. Even when she got involved with SPOTLIGHT, most of the articles she worked on she only made a few cosmetic changes. (Most less than 10 edits and those were mostly minor.) I could accept a few edits, if they were significant rewrites.
    • The answer to Xeno's question bothers me too, shouldn't decline an unblock request on your own block.
    • In her nom she is described as contributing to Wikipedia:Help desk. About 20 edits, including "your welcomes," is her total contribution there. Her nom also praises her for contributing to Wikipedia:New contributors' help page. I count 3 edits there. The nom praises her for her work on Spotlight where she has one edit and two on the associated talk page. Since April she's made about 100 edits on articles Spotlight was working on. And most of those are minor edits. She has only had one article where the talk page edits are in double digits, but this isn't surprising most of her article talk space is cosmetic edits. I don't see much to indicate that she has had to negotiate a controversial edit or wording on an article. Her edits to the talk space is very vanilla.
    • She has made 58 edits to TT:DYK. Most of them are cosmetic or moving of items to the next update page. Very few comments or evidence of discussion.
    • She has over 700 user talk edits, but don't let that number deceive you. She has only commented on 2 user talk pages more than 10 times. The reason is because prior to June she was an active CSD'er and has about 400 template messages announcing a speedy delete.
    • When she says that she hasn't been involved in a conflict on wikipedia, I believe her. There isn't enough evidence that she communicates with people on a regular basis to get involved in conflict. Her edits are all solid, but nothing indicates strong policy knowledge or a strong backbone. I don't see any place where she takes a stand or confronts others (except for here on her RfA after several opposed had criticized her for not addressing Majorly's behavior.) She seems to avoid conflict, her rebuttal of Majorly indicates such, At first I had a mindset of "let him do what he wants." We need people who will take definitive action when needed.
    • Finally, there was Koji's final comment, And, to be completley honest, I have such little faith in Majorly's judgement that the fact that he is your nominator is a red flag as well. Majorly has expressed elsewhere that he believes 1000 edits and 3 months is more than enough experience to pass an RfA. He has only opposed about 15% of the RfA's he's participated in---and when he does oppose there is a very good chance that the RfA is going to SNOW Close. Only on about 5% of the candidates who he votes does he oppose when they are serious candidates and not newbies. To give perspective, %5 is about the same percentage of candidates that KMWEBER supports. This makes me wonder how thoroughly he vets his candidates. That combined with his belligerent attitude at this (and other) RfA's is enough for me to question him. (And snide remarks elsewhere) Majorly might want to review the Nominators role during the RfA.
    Oh yeah, I almost forgot: Age doesn't bother me though. As I mentioned in my original support, maturity isn't only defined by age. I have no problem with granting the bit to minors. I do see and understand the rationale behind the age oppose, but it is not the only criteria to judge a candidate. You do good work, but not adminly work.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 06:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    After reading through this a couple of times, I must say that this oppose has got some strong reasons. Very thought-out and detailed; good work Balloonman. Jamie☆S93 23:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose per concerns the user may not be legally accountable George The Dragon (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a legal issue regarding this user? Please explain. --T-rex 15:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Sorry, but I have to oppose. You do some great work here. However, the BLP question that I posed earlier shows that you quite don't have an understanding of some of the policies. Your response was If the policy were to somehow get in the way of truly improving the encyclopedia, it could be ignored within reason. BLP is a very big legal issue for Wikipedia and shouldn't be "ignored", per this. I also oppose on some of the concerns above. miranda 22:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. I feel bad for piling on but there are three concerns: 1. A candidate of admin material would have quietly or publicly asked Majorly to knock it off by now. 2. A candidate working on a resume of an article builder should probably have more good/featured content under their belt (I know this is disputable, but it is my opinion). 3. Per DGG. I'm sorry. All three of these concerns are fixable over a few months. If you spend some time in policy discussion areas and such, you can help this. Or (alternately), if that really isn't your bag, you can knuckle down and put together more content. Either way, this is a temporary hiccup. Please don't take these oppose votes as a direct comment on your character or as a sign that they don't value your contributions. Protonk (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose I was thinking of what to write here, but Protonk said it well. The candidate is not quite ready. And yes she should have told Majorly to knock off by now. Majorly's behavior as an editor, nom, and admin here is utterly appalling. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose I had toast for breakfast this morning. Let me explain myself. This is not about the candidate's age. I have three major concerns. 1) The candidate shows an inability to assume good faith in her answer to Xeno's question, and also handles the unblock request for her own block, which to me is a red flag. 2) The candidate sells herself as primarily an article writer yet has only 1 GA under her belt. I only say this because the user sells herself as an article writer. Also, Majorly, getting an article to B class isn't that impressive. 3) The candidate does not understand the vital policy of WP:BLP well enough for an admin, especially an article writing one, as demonstrated by response to Q7. These three concerns make me oppose. Cheers, Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose Regretfully. Essentially per SandyGeorgia (and yes, Majorly, I have read your response), Protonk and per answer to Q7. I don't wish to pile on but the reactions of certain individuals here has prompted me to add my bits. I too am concerned at the accountability and life-experience maturity of a high-school-ager when considering the realities. Age is a valid issue, and will remain so. The (somewhat paradoxical) bawling slung at anyone who raises such concerns won't change that. It is, however, incidental to this particular Oppose. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose I could care less how old you are. In fact, I really like that this community welcomes and protects youth, and my own RFA coach/co-nominator was a teen. But anyone who says they haven't been in any conflicts on Wikipedia is either lying or is simply not ready to be an administrator. Being a sysop on Wikipedia doesn't necessarily mean you'll get in to nasty conflicts of your own, but it does mean that others will bring their conflicts to you to solve. Someone who's never been in a editing conflict (even a completely civil one) of their own is not likely to be the best moderator in those situations. To have my vote of confidence, I need to have see some history of how you react under pressure. Your mainspace contributions are superb, but I'm just not comfortable with the idea of any sysop, young or old, being thrown to the wolves with no conflict resolution experience behind them. Steven Walling (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose My apologies, but per Q#7 BLP is a serious real life issue above meerely improving the encyclopedia.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. TL;DR oppose. Feel free to bleat "ageism" all you want, but if it's a choice between a handful of people on a Wiki or this guy, this guy, this guy, this guy, this guy, and this lady, I'm quite inclined to put my faith in the latter opinion. Too much scientific thought, agreeing that there is a substantial difference between pre-adults and adults, exists for me to throw rational thought to the wind and embrace this sort of ultra-radical "loony left" (for lack of a better term - not to be confused with the good ol' fashioned welfare-and-gay-marriage somewhat-utilitarian (utilitarian-Universalist, perhaps?) left-wing, of which I am a foam-finger-waving supporter).
    • While I am not opposing solely on age, age does mean that I am looking for something truly outstanding about this particular candidate. We've had good under-18 admins, but I suspect this is a grand total of around 5% of all underage applicants. Does Jamie seem like an earnest, worthwhile editor? Absolutely! But do I think Jamie stands within that particular "5%"? Not so much. Jamie's AfD participation, while a benefit to the project, comes mostly on the bleeding-obvious articles (see Icewedge's oppose, #3 at the time of this writing). It is my understanding that the real backlog on AfD does not come from "My Garage Band That is the Most Famous Band in the World According to Our MySpace and is Thus Not Eligible for A7" or "You Merged My 200KB Article on a Pokemon's Girlfriend so I'm Nominating This Fictional Character as Well You Jerks", but rather from those tricky judgement calls such as this one and this one. From the candidate's current body of work, I can only infer that she would, at best, either pass on closing articles such as those (thus weakening her need for the tools as expressed in Q1), or take the path of least resistance, closing them as no consensus or no consensus (auto relist) - the latter of which doesn't really reduce the overall future workload, and the former is of debatable use - especially if it's the result of blind !vote-counting, without taking into account the rationales given on each side (Esperenza 2 being the most obvious example here).
    • Furthermore, the candidate's avoidance of two of the more controversial questions (Q6 and Q10) leaves me ill at ease, and further bolsters my maturity-concerns. Maturity is more than "please", "thank you", and table manners - there is also an element of self-assertation that is less-highlighted, which I do not find in this candidate. Both of these questions are "tricky" - Q6 is going through a major upheaval thanks to Elonka's recent actions, and Q10 is an automatic Kurt-oppose. That said, there is no reason the candidate could not have answered Q6 thoughtfully, along the lines of "right now, the process seems to be going through a bit of a flux, and I'm unsure of how the future will play out / unwilling to set anything in stone that may be gamed in the future / uncomfortable setting my own criteria, but will accept a future "blanket proposal" if I feel it reasonable" or whatever. The candidate should have an answer to Q10 as well - either she feels a cool-down block is appropriate under xyz, does not feel a cool-down block is ever appropriate, or is unwilling to answer. Yes, by leaving the answer blank she implies the last option, but there's no reason not to put this in words. Ultimately, it comes off as a bit too "needing to appease everyone" (as opposed to "ideally appeasing everyone") that's typical in pre-adulthood. I worry that if the candidate makes a mistake which results in drama (as mistakes tend to do), we'll get a WikiBreak and be left to move into phase II of the drama: bickering over whether we should let the mistake-making admin reverse themselves, or whether it's appropriate for someone else to reverse them, or whether that'd be wheel-warring, or whether considering the possibility that it may be wheel-warring is in fact a violation of WP:AGF, or whether it might just be a violation of WP:CIVIL, and so on and so on and so on.
    • All that said (with an extra-emphasis on the "all that"), there is a lot to admire about Ms. Jamie, and I wouldn't rule out the possibility at some yet-to-be-determined future date of another try, with more experience under her belt and (one would hope) a more becoming nom - this point was also raised elsewhere in the opposes. I believe even a self-nom would ultimately look better than a hyper-vigilant oppose-badgerer and a two-week IRC buddy. Badger Drink (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I read thru your comments and appreciate your reasoning. But the last sentence is displeasing and I wonder if you'd strike it out? Thanks. HG | Talk 13:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies if my rationale upsets you, but no. Badger Drink (talk) 04:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading through that, you seem to refer to this thing called "Adulthood", and how "substantially different" a "pre-adult" is to an "adult". Forgive me if I've interpreted this wrong, but are you claiming that I will go through a "substantial change" in a few months time when I become legally of age? I think not. Maturity, yes, but that doesn't necessarily arrive at a set age. To prove it, I know of at least one admin, who is younger than Jamie, and has been an admin for a while. I'm not sure if this user has publicly released their age, so I will keep their identity quiet (to protect them), and let them come forward if they wish. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 19:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt it will happen magically overnight, but if I read that right, and you are in fact 17 and some months, I'm relatively confident that you have some growing to do yet. I deliberately avoided using the phrase "adolesence" as I figured some would take offense to it, as it oftentimes has certain negative connotations. There are certainly exceptional exceptions to every rule, and there have certainly been exceptional underage admins - but, while I don't wish to get into gory specifics, I don't believe Jamie is one of those exceptional exceptions. Badger Drink (talk) 04:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose, probable lack of experience and knowledge relating to Wikipedia policy, as evidenced by low level of contributions in Wikipedia namespace. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Regretful Oppose as I do not feel truly comfortable supporting the RfA at this time. However with several more months of experience with the project, I feel that JamieS93 would make a fine admin. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose the nominee has not shown the breadth and scope of contributions necessary to justify selection as an admin. I would encourage the nominee to continue and expand her participation in creating articles, DYK and XfD, the areas in which she has shown some aptitude, and prove to me and other editors that she is ready for prime time. A strong potential future admin who will merit serious consideration by me in a future RfA. Alansohn (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose - Although this user has been quite active on AIV, I would like to see more experience at AFD, ANI and possibly help out at other places on Wikipedia. Out of his 4,469 edits, only 394 are in the Wiki-space. However, this user has demostrated a good knowledge of Wikipedia so far, and I am confident, should this user wish to fulfil another RfA in a few months time (with more experience and with a few more thousand edits), it will pass. D.M.N. (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose, per answer to Q5. Your answer indicates that you have some belief that they may in fact come back to contribute constructively, so why make them wait? Vandals are a dime a dozen and re-blocks are cheap, but constructive contributors are golden. –xeno (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose. A thoughtful editor who is dedicated to the project but unready at this time for adminship tools. Note: This oppose is not based on chronological age: the nominee's 04:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC) comments above, about what I have come to see as a Lord of the Flies atmosphere generated by Majorly, clearly demonstrate levelheadedness and maturity. — Athaenara ✉ 23:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Weak oppose - Quite a few problems, both in this RfA and generally. I'd like to see more evidence of policy knowledge... perhaps come back in 6 months and I may have a support for you.  Asenine  02:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. +O Not yet. Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 03:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Weak oppose. While I think the age opposes are absolute crap, some other opposes are very valid and have convinced me. Certainly the candidate can be ready soon though, shouldn't take too much effort. Wizardman 12:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On that I can agree...---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 15:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Sorry, but the candidate's answers and contribution history do not indicate they are prepared for admin duties at this time. Shereth 18:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose Weak contributions. I am opposed to kids being admins (if you lack legal right to vote in most English-speaking countries, I discriminate). And answers to questions confirmed my attitude. And per SandyGeorgia who is 100% correct. I'm sure I'll be badgered too.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose Not enough wikipedia space edits.--Dacium (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Weak Oppose Per Sandy Georgia.--LAAFan 16:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose per SandyGeorgia and to a lesser extent Friday. -Djsasso (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose for several reasons. (1) Although it appears there may be some experience with consensus building and article building, I feel there is insufficient knowledge/experience in: (a) the dispute resolution system, (b) the important fundamentals behind certain policies, and (c) in Wikipedia norms. (2) I'm personally not convinced that the candidate has had sufficient experience in admin-related areas (which is directly relevant). (3) Per Nuclear Warfare, this concern is further heightened by the candidate's apparent failure to understand a fundamental point - while it's okay to accept an unblock request for the block you yourself instituted, you should never decline that unblock request if you yourself made the block. (4) Per Miranda, BLP issues are of utmost importance to Wikipedia and they cannot be ignored (even in theory). (5) Per Friday, I understand that exceptional youngsters exist, but I've seen no sufficiently compelling evidence of unusual maturity, particularly in the absence of experience in more contentious content areas. (6) As a separate note, not forming a reason for me opposing: expecting FA GA or DYK medals as a criteria for adminship can be disgracefully unreasonable - quality content contributions can be (and are often) made in the absence of going through any (or all) of these processes that some users have their own reservations over. [Note: I don't think this candidate has any reservation relating to this, so he should probably consider getting more involved in these processes - it can act as a fast-track to gaining insight into some important issues relevant to content areas of the pedia, as well as some other wiki-norms]. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Weak content contributions. Additionally, having children hold positions of responsibility on an influential website is inviting a PR nightmare. east718 // talk // email // 12:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose, per Friday and Icewedge. There are also valid concerns about sufficiently good understanding of WP policies, raised by others above, such as opposes by Mazca, NuclearWarfare, and Miranda. Nsk92 (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Weak oppose – tending towards neutral, but think Wizardman has it right: with more experience of difficult situations a good candidate, but not just yet. Balloonman raises very valid concerns. .. dave souza, talk 20:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose - Maturity concerns. Tiptoety talk 23:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. As above, waiting for answers. America69 (talk) 10:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral because I just can't make my mind up yet! I'll probably make a more firm support/oppose choice in the next few days. John Sloan (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral: seems like a decent admin, and my standards are lenient, but.. the underlying circumstances lean me from support to oppse. Wizardman 17:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]
    Pardon me for asking this, but I'm a little confused as to what underlying circumstances you are referring to. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 18:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]
    I meant the Majorly situationon the talk page. Wizardman 12:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per sandyG and similar. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Would love to support as I see no indication whatsoever that this user would abuse the tools, have seen them around and been happy with what I've seen, and believe they would make a good admin. The opposes, while not convincing me to join them, however, do give me pause - it's a timing issue more than anything else. Had I been nominated three months before I was, I quite likely would have had a rough ride here, and certainly would have had a hard landing on the other side as an admin. The FA development process is pretty much unique - I can spit out B-class articles with a couple of hours work, but my last FA took me 1-2 months and my present work towards one looks like being much the same. I've seen the efforts by the WP:BANKSIA crew in that regard too (although I'm not suggesting scaling cyclone fences to get obscure photographs as a necessary hurdle for adminship :)) My advice would be to select a finite class of articles within your field of knowledge or capability of research, improve them to B/C as appropriate, and then selectively improve a few to GA/FA. Once you've done that, I'd be happy to support. Good luck. Orderinchaos 20:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral for the moment. I'm not quite sure what opinion I will develop regarding this RfA, though some of the conversations on the talk page does concern me quite a bit - RfA's shouldn't be this dramatic. Personally, I see age as an issue only important when the position carries significant legal responsibility along with it, such as checkuser status, and the wikimedia foundation already has a system in place for checkuser. Short of that, the maturity of the individual user should be all that is relevant. If a user did not reveal their age and was mature enough, people would have no idea how old they were. CCG (T-C) 03:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral because I don't know the candidate, but the ageism rampant in the opposes sickens me. Corvus cornixtalk 21:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/JamieS93&oldid=1251626019"