Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/IslaamMaged126 3


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

IslaamMaged126
FINAL (0/12/4); Closed at 05:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC) per WP:SNOW by 

- I have read over some of the tool pagess for adminship, started using edit summaries almost every time (even automatic ones), and have learned more about wikipedia.I know 300 edits is quite low, but I promise good faith to all and to be ready to help any user!  ¤~IslaamMaged126  22:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Questions for the candidate
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: I think that after reading wikiepdia and learning more since my previous 2 unsuccsesful ones that I will be ready to help any user,nominate pages and block using the autoblock tool, deleting images/files that were listed for deletion(or seem that they must be deleted)..and probably almost anything! Mostly I work on userpages and vandalism, but I'm ready to do anything else!


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I think that my best contributions are wikipedia related pages, userpages and vandalism.I'm ready to help users on anything else, though.


 * 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 have recently been in a small conflict with R9T ( I had told him that he was on wikipdia not often for him to be my adopter(I am no longer adopted) and he took it as offensive. I apologized with a smile and a small message.If R9T is reading this I hope tha the can accept my apology!

I think another way to have dealt with a problem like that is to talk to the user, maybe using better comments and words.

General comments

 * See IslaamMaged126's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for IslaamMaged126:

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/IslaamMaged126 before commenting.''

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose as 10 years old should not be an admin regardless of person. --mms (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ageism isn't allowed here. Previous discussions also bolster this. 哦，是吗？ (review O) 00:01, 16 December 2007 (GMT)
 * What do you mean? ¤~IslaamMaged126  00:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe I would consider a candidate who is 18 years old but a 10 years old as an admin? No way! Of course teens can contribute to Wikipedia but they don't need to be and should not be admins. I mean, do you accuse child labor opponents of ageism, too? An admin doesn't need to engage in all administrative fields—that's true—but he or she should have a well developed skill in handling conflicts. It is impossible for a child or teen to have developed this skill to an above average level. That's why I only put the age on record even though there are other reasons which oppose this request for adminship. --mms (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes teens can be admins, it's not impossible: Ilyanep became an admin at 11 and a bureaucrat at 13. Anonymous Dissident, who is 12, is also an admin. I should also point out that I'm an admin too, and I'm 17. Acalamari 00:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Then how come Ilyanep has such skill, as Mms says, if there's "No way"? Many people may have higher IQ's, better learning skills or something like that? Doesn't my abandoned account count as edit count? ¤~IslaamMaged126   01:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ, O. Opposing a candidate, purely because of there age does not violate No personal attacks, as it is not insulting the user, unless they take a personal offense to it. Although ageism is not taken kindly by some on Wikipedia, there is no policy to prohibit it. Qst 00:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Now I get it.Thank you,Qst. ¤~IslaamMaged126  00:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * An editor may oppose a candidate for any reason they like, however, if the reason is something like "This user cut me off in traffic", the closing bureaucrat won't give it much weight. Useight (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ...nor would they give much weight on someone opposing solely due to a discrimination against those who are underaged. --DarkFalls talk 00:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is no reason to oppose. Familiarity and experience determine how well an admin does decisions, not years alive. It is the actions online that matter. The words on the screen, not the human in the real world. Marlith  T / C 05:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. A month and a half, along with only 300 edits isn't nearly enough experience for the community to be able to accurately assess your knowledge of policies and procedures nor determine your trustworthiness. It's not a knock against you or your contributions, we'll just need to see more of it. I recommend making sure you have a handle on policies as outlined here, doing some working in admin-like areas (WP:AFD, report some vandals to WP:AIV), and doing some more mainspace work. I also recommend withdrawing this RFA before it is closed per WP:SNOW. Useight (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Ageist or not, I do not consider that a person of 10 years old can have the maturity required of an administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have any advice on how the user can improve their skills? Acalamari 00:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Get older? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the funniest thing I've heard all day! :) Useight (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Candidates age doesn't have that much affect on me here. Just not enough experience yet to assess you readiness for sysop functions. Your answers to the questions don't convince me you are ready. You are doing well but become more active in the mainspace, WP:AFD, tagging CSD, WP:AIV.-- Sandahl 01:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose This clearly isn't going to pass and since when is 'ageism' a cardinal sin? It's not for other users to tell people the grounds on which they can support or oppose, any more than there's rules for deciding the grounds for how you 'should' vote in an election. Sometimes saying 'too young' is a nicer way of opposing than listing a whole bunch of faults, mistakes and shortcomings. The reason why this user changed user names, as given on his user page, doesn't inspire confidence for example.  Nick mallory (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong oppose - you've made under two dozen mainspace edits and you're already on your third RfA? This verges on disruptiveness. Try back in six months with a couple thousand good edits, and I'll reconsider. Biruitorul (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, based on age and based on this upload and its use in a userbox on your page. -JodyBtalk 02:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm very sorry, but I don't think you're ready for such authority yet, so I must sadly Oppose. Lankiveil (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
 * 2) Oppose you have a non-free image on your userpage, and a userbox that reads "NEVER GET THIS USER ANGRY!". Your userpage only shows you have neither the understanding of policy nor the temperament to be sysopped.  ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 03:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Fair use issues. --DarkFalls talk 03:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong Oppose As recently as October, under her previous username, she reverted the redirection of a page per AfD , then removed the AfD tag and continued editing the page. Then continued trying to undo the redirect - the article history does not bode well for an admin candidate just 2 months later. Also disappointed there was no disclosure of the former username on either the RFA nor her current userpage (except a "hidden" link that does not alert you to the fact that you are being directed to a different user talk page, but that probably is just an oversite). This leads to the question, What other accounts, if any, do you have that you have not disclosed? I was also disappointed to see your old talk page deleted  which seems to be against talk page deletion policy. Why was that deleted? Also disappointed to see so many RfA so close together (Nov 10 and Nov 24 and now Dec 22); shows severe impatience. And the answer to #2 shows she has not made any significant contributions to the encyclopedia part of the encyclopedia (i.e., wrote anything of worth), which tends to be helpful on an encyclopedia. Way too soon to entrust with tools.-- 12 N  oo  n  2¢ 05:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) 0ppose per lack of experience, however, I believe that with a couple of more months of hard work, you will a much worhtier candidate for the mop. Marlith  T / C 05:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would suggest preparing WP:TW to help out with maintenance tasks including vandal hunting. Marlith  <font color="#228B22">T /<font color="#228B22"> C 05:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral Your enthusiasm is awesome, but I just don't feel I can support without a better understanding of how you edit. Sorry! Master of Puppets Care to share?  01:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral Not enough experience yet, but if his enthusiasm rocks. -- Shark face  217  01:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) neutral Enthusiasm is very inspiring but I am not sure about the amount of experience you have at editing on Wikipedia. It is not worth an oppose, but not worth a support either.  Jh  fireboy  Talk  01:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral to reduce the pile-on. Admin actions can have longlasting effects on Wikipedia users and content. This is why they need extensive experience of Wikipedia policies and mainspace editing - to make sure they've "seen it all" or at least "seen most of it". Even with your former account as User:Coolgirly88 you need a great deal more experience in both Wikipedia policies (especially vandal reversion, AfD's and similar, an contributions to policy pages) and editing articles. There's no set number of edits and no set time before you become eligible but your edit history needs to be long enough for others to get a good idea of your ability. Right now that's not there. Euryalus (talk) 03:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.