Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thine Antique Pen

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

Thine Antique Pen

Final (118/58/11); ended 20:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination

Thine Antique Pen (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to present to you Thine Antique Pen. I've known Thine Antique Pen for a few years now, having helped to mentor him in the past. Over that period, I've been amazed at the skills he has shown. Looking at his track record, he's written some excellent articles, a small portion of which are listed at his user page - the quality and diversity of the article is quite stunning (one example is Perijá tapaculo, currently a featured article candidate). Recently he has been helping out at CCI, repairing or removing copyright violations (which I spot-checked and looked good to me), one of the most important maintenance tasks on Wikipedia.
You may have noticed I mentioned I helped mentor Thine Antique Pen in the past, well he had a rough start on Wikipedia. Like many, he arrived keen to help out and was over-zealous with his some of his actions, especially user-right requests. He refocussed on article writing and attention to detail as part of the mentorship and it really shows. In the subsequent 3 and a bit years, he's discussed user-right requests in depth with me prior to requesting them, even long after that restriction was lifted. He is always willing to ask for advice if he's unsure and is considerate of his actions. I talked to him recently about his history and he told me his early behaviour actually makes him cringe! I sincerely believe Thine Antique Pen has redeemed himself of those 3-4 year old actions and has gone on to be one of our best editors. Those who have worked with him surely must agree.
Today, we have an experienced content creator, willing to help out in important areas of Wikipedia carefully. He is constantly helpful and asks for help when he needs it. What more could you want in an administrator? Worm^TT(talk) 08:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Co-nomination

I'm delighted to see Thine Antique Pen running for adminship. My experience of him has been very positive, right from our first interactions when he assisted me in fixing a series of copyright violations. He knows what he's doing, understands how Wikipedia works, and has a good record of content creation; he also has a fair amount of experience in admin-related areas such as deletion (see the swathes of red in User:Thine_Antique_Pen/CSD_log). His approach to editing is collaborative, and avoids excessive drama; he strikes me as someone who can keep a calm head in a difficult situation, which is a very useful skill in an administrator.
There will, as noted above, undoubtedly be opposition based on his early history here; I would urge voters to review his more recent work and note the drastic improvements he has made. TAP is an excellent editor and would, IMHO, make an equally excellent administrator. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm very grateful to Worm and Yunshui for their nominations, and I accept. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I plan to start with CCI work, for which the administrator toolset would enable me to delete infringing content and evaluate revisions that have already been deleted. I also intend to work on page protections and speedy deletions, make procedural contributions to SPI, and help reduce various administrative backlogs such as non-free files with orphaned versions.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I am most proud of my content contributions, where I have brought 19 18 articles to Good Article status, a few list articles to Featured List status, and am still working on achieving my potential first Featured Article. I have a lot to learn about what the perfect Wikipedia article looks like, and I should mention that, just as in my meta activities the advice of Worm and Yunshui and others has been essential, in the development of content a wide range of editors have guided and corrected my sometimes rambling prose. Thanks to the Wikipedia Library initiative, I also benefit from access to numerous journals and archives.

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: Back in 2012 I had a very haphazard approach to editing and became obsessed with gaining user rights. As well as overwhelming administrators with demands for various user rights, I was also editing far too carelessly, and too quickly for my level of experience and understanding at the time. As a result I was indefinitely blocked following this discussion and unblocked by agreement with the blocking admin just under four hours later.

Subsequently I completely changed my approach, learned to slow down, and focused on content creation rather than on meta areas that I was not well suited to handle at the time. As my knowledge and experience grew, I moved back into administrative related tasks, taking part in AfD and page patrolling, and more recently Contributor Copyright Investigations. My approach over the last couple of years has been to treat editing disagreements dispassionately rather than personally, seek advice from more experienced Wikipedians, and resolve disputes through Wikipedia process rather than argument.

Additional questions from Steel1943

4. Do you have any examples of experience you have in the venues you mentioned in Question 1 (WP:CSD, WP:RFPP, WP:SPI) that you feel can inspire confidence in others that you have knowledge of how these processes work and that you will be an asset to these venues?

A: First, SPI. This investigation and this investigation are examples of sockpuppet accounts that I reported which were blocked after a checkuser confirmed they were the same. In the second investigation, the checkuser also identified a fourth sockpuppet in addition to the three that I listed. Whereas, this investigation required an administrator to verify the contributions of a suspected sockpuppet account to an article that had already been deleted, and the accounts were blocked as being obviously linked by their behaviour (as discussed in the essay WP:DUCK), without needing checkuser confirmation. In all cases, the accounts were blocked as having using their multiple accounts illegitimately, as opposed to using more than one account as a good faith error in ignorance of policy.

Second, RFPP. This is an example of a request for semi-protection of an article due to persistent vandalism, you can see its resulting protection (and some of the vandalism) at the article's history. This is an example of a request for an article being protected from creation ("salting"), due to an inappropriate article being repeatedly created; you can see the article's deletions and subsequent protection in its log.

The best place to see my use of CSD is at my CSD log. Redlinked pages are those which were deleted and never subsequently recreated; bluelinked pages were either not deleted, or were later recreated, perhaps with different content to when I marked them for speedy deletion. To list one specific example, I identified this article as meeting both A9 and G5; the G5 identification led to this sockpuppet investigation.

5. Above, you have mentioned WP:RFPP, WP:CSD and WP:SPI as focus points if granted the tools, but since becoming an administrator gives an editor access to the entire toolset, can you provide any experience in participating in other heavily administrator-handled venues, such as all of the WP:XFD forums, having to be the uninvolved party to close a rather exhausting thread on a WP:AN board or any of its subpages, WP:AIV, etc?

A: Examples I would mention are, at usernames for administrator attention, this diff and this diff show me identifying two users with promotional usernames; both were subsequently blocked as violations of the username policy. At administrator intervention against vandalism, this diff shows me reporting a user for repeated vandalism to a page, and the user was subsequently blocked. At AfD, this diff shows me highlighting how an article looked likely to be in violation of the content guideline Wikipedia:Autobiography, and this diff shows me explaining how bias in the existing version of an article could be better addressed by broadening coverage in the existing article, rather than deleting it. I don't participate at WP:AN and WP:ANI much, having had some bad experiences there in the past, and having been advised to avoid drama. Controversial threads there should mostly not be closed by non-administrators, so there has been little need or value for my getting involved with closing them. Even if I do become an administrator, using the toolset for slicing at controversial Gordian Knots would be something I would prefer to avoid.

Additional question from Noyster

6. Could you explain why 27 different, though related, articles were all nominated for DYK recently at the same time and using the same hook? (See this and this)

A: I created these articles and they all met the criteria for Did you know? as newly created and properly referenced articles of a sufficient length. It is a common practice, when dealing with a large number of such articles, to nominate them all in one "hook", so that they are all dealt with by a single appearance on the main page, rather than having a multitude of similar-looking hooks over multiple days or weeks, which would have our readers wondering why this coral is blue is on the main page one day, that coral lives in slightly warmer water the next day, some other coral is the only one discovered near some location the following day, and so on for 27 days or so. Although the automated notifications did indeed make a horrible mess of my talk page, only the one single hook appeared, for some hours only, on the main page. I will admit I am not great at writing catchy Did you know? hooks - of course there are a great many species in the same IUCN bracket - but the species' vulnerability to extinction is at least a very significant fact about them.

Additional questions from Oshwah

7. What is the actual difference between Substitution and Transclusion?

A: Transclusion means that when the content of the page being transcluded changes, that change will be reflected in the appearance of all pages transcluding that page. Substitution is when "subst:" is used, so the current version of a page is added into another page, and will not change in the other page when the added page changes.

8. You indicated that you want to work in CSD. What sort of things constitute a "claim of significance" in assessing an A7 or A9 speedy deletion? Can you explain exactly what it means, and give some examples of things that do or do not qualify?

A: When assessing A7 or A9, a claim of significance can be accepted where it is both plausible (that is, not obviously untrue, ridiculous, or hugely unlikely), and implies a level of importance or significance of the topic that might (if it were true and sourced) contribute towards notability. The claim does not need to be sourced or proven to meet this requirement. For example, an article suggesting that a previously unknown person was the first human being to set foot on Pluto, fails the plausibility test. An article suggesting only that a named individual was the most respected rapper in their town, fails the significance test. An article suggesting that a particular business has been in existence for over 200 years and is still the leading supplier of horse harnesses to European royalty, would pass both tests. An article suggesting that a musical recording was released last week by an unknown individual, and is "very popular on iTunes", fails the significance test, and would meet A9 if there is no article about the individual.

9. As an admin, you are patrolling CAT:CSD and find an article whose entire content is "At the end of the Jurassic Era, <Name of Species>, a dinosaur related to Spinosaurs Irritator,Spinosaurs,Suchomimus,Etc., became extinct due to a DNA mutation that eventually prevented their digestive systems from properly processing starch." It has been tagged for speedy deletion under A1. What do you do?

A: Thank you for an excellent question! I would remove the A1 tag as we are given context. I would then have concerns about the article content because, (1) spinosaurs and their relatives do not eat starchy foods, (2) the misleading use of genus and family names in the original article made me suspicious, (3) we have almost no information about spinosaurs apart from some skeletal fragments, much less detailed DNA records, (4) scientific documentation of such an extinction by such means is vanishingly rare, and (5) the specification of the extinction of the species seems unduly exact; the largest specifically identified mass extinction was at the beginning of the Jurassic period, not the end, and was not through this mechanism. I would check if it was an actual species. If an actual species, it could either be tagged with dubious tags, and raised at WT:DINO, or I could remove the content and try to establish a hoax-free article. If not an actual species, due to these inaccuracies, I would tag the page under G3 for further review by another administrator and explain my findings on the article talk page.

10. You indicated that you want to work in RFPP. When should you apply Pending-changes protection to an article instead of Semi-protection? When would you apply Full protection to an article instead of Semi-protection or Pending-changes protection?

A: Pending changes protection should be used when an article has been persistently vandalised, or if there have been copyright or BLP violations. Only level 1 (autoconfirmed edits are automatically shown, others require approval by a reviewer) should be used, whereas level 2 (where all edits require approval by a reviewer) should not be used due to the outcome of Wikipedia:PC2012/RfC 1. However, even level 1 should not be used on highly-edited articles, when semi-protection should be used. Full protection can be used in edit wars where one or all of the editors are autoconfirmed or in content disputes, and can be a preferable alternative to blocking one or more editors. Semi-protection and pending changes protection should not be used in content disputes to avoid giving unfair advantages to confirmed or reviewer editors; for the same reason, if full protection is used due to a content dispute, administrators should not use their ability to continue editing the page before the dispute is resolved.

11. What is your view of Process is important?

A: Process is important. Processes provide structure for getting things done, whether at WP:FAC, WP:GAN, or WP:SPI. And the essay is correct in that where a process has appeared not to be working well, it can be changed by consensus, as has happened at WP:DYK several times (with debatable success). The essay is correct in that without process, we would not be able to run Wikipedia, there would indeed be chaos. But there are two downsides to our dependence on process. First, where it is perceived as needing change but the inertia of the existing process prevents this, for example WP:RFA. And second, our huge number of processes and our rigid adherence to them, can be seen as unwelcoming to newcomers, and can be confusing to the outside world. Process is essential, but problems do come with it.

Additional questions from Alanscottwalker

12. Would you speak generally about your philosophy of, or views of, the translation of articles into English Wikipedia? Then would you detail your process and experience for translating articles specifically from Spanish, German, Polish, Arabic, and French? Also, how do you ensure quality control in this area?

A: For a long time, some have said that the English Wikipedia is "basically complete". That is to say, everything important is now covered in sufficient depth. But this is not yet actually the case. Wikipedias in other languages may be smaller, but still they contain millions of articles, and many of these articles have in depth coverage of clearly notable topics that are not yet covered here. I do agree that both featured article criteria and notability criteria can be substantially different on other language Wikipedias, but still there is much we can bring to this project from a good or featured article on another project; as writers we are naturally skewed to cover topics within the cultural sphere of our own language, and looking outside that is good. It is also refreshing to look at how things are presented from a different viewpoint, even if (in my case) it's only a few thousand miles away or less. There is a huge wealth of talent at work on other language Wikipedias, and it is worthwhile to build on that work just as we would build on the work of other editors on the same project.

With that in mind, I begin work on a translation by reading the entire article through in detail, getting an understanding of the topic as a whole and the way its significance is presented. There will be a need to look at not just at the sources for the article to be translated, but also at related articles whether in the original language or in English, and at related external sources too. This is because a quality translation requires a thorough understanding of the context, which for the articles I've translated has variously included architectural, social, military, political and other elements. For the actual translation, I have the advantage that different branches of my family came to England in the second half of the last century from different parts of Europe, therefore I not only have experience in different languages "from birth", but also still have native speakers of several languages around to test my linguistic understanding on. I once considered myself fluent in multiple languages, which I now regard as a substantial exaggeration, but I still occasionally get caught out incorrectly using grammatical constructions from other European languages when I'm trying to write English (some of you will know the feeling).

I moved away from translating German-language articles because after carefully reviewing my own translation work, I was not fully satisfied with the outcome; I think my German language skills are perhaps a little too rusty. I don't think I have translated any articles from Arabic or Polish. Actually my enthusiasm for translations has rather waned now anyway, but in any event any future ones (and the current ones where possible) will have attribution both on the talk page and in the article history, which is actually going further than what the relevant editing guideline says. Some of my attribution has in the past been sloppy, which I regret.

Additional question from --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec

13. Can you explain why you claim credit for helping get Gangnam Style to GA when you have only made three edits to that article, none of them particularly substantial?

A: I shouldn't. I have clear columns on my userpage for articles I helped bring to GA status and those I merely nominated, and I should have put that in the nominated column. I have no excuse for missing this, as I believe someone mentioned it to me a year or so ago. I have now fixed it on my userpage, and also in my answer to Q2.

Thank you for clarifying. I have no doubt that this is an honest mistake and will not change my vote over it. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Additional question from Σ

14. You lead a busy life, full of activities, many of which are required of you. Tell about something you do for the pleasure of it.

A: Wikipedia is pleasurable! (This week, slightly less so.) I enjoy swimming and cycling, and am a competent pianist. One of my recent lulls in editing activity was due to time spent achieving a Duke of Edinburgh's Award, but some sections of that were more challenging than pleasurable. I regularly watch Question Time (TV series) and Have I Got News for You.

Additional question from Glrx

15. Comment on the public domain rationale for file:1920-Puits_Sainte-Marie_01.jpg, a 1920 image?

A: The rationale, if valid, would require "a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States", since the USA does not only extend copyright for life + 70 years. However, the rationale is not valid anyway, since without knowing the author, we cannot establish the date of their death, nor assume that they died so long ago in this case. An alternative to consider is the PD-1923 template. But even if we accept that the image was taken in 1920, the PD-1923 template is still not applicable, as we are given no information (and I cannot establish) as to when it was published. Publication, not creation, is the deciding factor for that template.

Additional question from Bilorv

16. You claim in question 13 that you nominated Gangnam Style for GA. The article history at Talk:Gangnam Style shows that there has only ever been one GA nomination for the article, which seems to have been made by A1candidate. Neither you nor Tomtomn00 seem to have ever edited Talk:Gangnam Style. You did make two small comments to Talk:Gangnam Style/GA1, one of which seemed to be factually incorrect, and one of which is a short unsubstantiated opinion. Do you feel it is honest to list this on your userpage as an article you nominated for GA? Since this is based on edits you made three years ago, is this still the way you would behave today or perhaps an action made when you were a bit more prone to exaggerating and showing off awards?

A: The diff you list was based on my attitude three years ago, since I had obviously not made any major edits to the article and it is bizarre for me to have suggested, back then, that I had. Listing it as nominated was an error I made 24 hours ago, when I assumed that I must have nominated it. The old extreme exaggeration, and the new wrong assumption, are now both fixed.

Discussion

• Links for Thine Antique Pen: Thine Antique Pen (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Thine Antique Pen can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Support

:# Support The content creations and stats look okay, he has lots of GAs and DYKs, and on his talk I see he was approached last year to see if he was interested in mentoring other editors. 130 AfDs with 85% called correctly is enough to know what you're doing, and he has a prolific CSD log, which is enough to reassure me he understands policy. He's got the experience and the clue as far as I'm concerned. I'll say now that I did look into nominating Thine Antique Pen myself, and my previous notes showed me he's got one ancient block with a small amount of extenuating circumstances; the admin he conflicted with was rude and sarcastic and there was no clear consensus on the block when it went to ANI. It's over 3 years old, and I've lost the diffs but I recall digging through deleted talk page threads to find it, so I say it's irrelevant ancient history. In summary - give him the mop. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC) (moved to neutral)

1. Support - to be honest, based on the co-nominators I considered not even bothering to read the rest. Some users will surely use Thine Antique Pen's early rough start as a reason to oppose, which will be regrettably short-sighted. This user even back then was willing to accept criticism and advice from more experienced users, learn how we do things, and grow into an excellent contributor, which is clearly the best outcome from a rough start that can be achieved. Excellent deletion record by AfD and CSD logs, nearly 75% contributions to mainspace with several quality achievements (as noted by Ritchie333), and clean block log discounting the first. CCI and SPI are areas that desperately need admin help. You'll certainly be an asset to the community with the mop; no concerns at all here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

   Reaffirming support in light of everything that's gone on in the oppose section. In particular I heartily endorse Collect's edit summary here: "age" is not a specific reasonable requirement unless or until policy asserts that it should be one. I trust the 'crats to take into account when reviewing this that we have no such policy. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

2. Strong support. I have felt for some time that Thine Antique Pen should be an administrator. (I actually suggested it to him recently, but Worm beat me to it.) Thine Antique Pen is a strong content contributor, with lots of articles created and a WP:Triple Crown. His comments at AfD are thoughtful and helpful, and his CSD log shows an excellent understanding of speedy deletion criteria. He has experience at other admin-type areas like RFPP, AIV, and UAA. And he brings a rare skill to the table: experience with copyright investigation. I'm sure he will be a net asset to the project as an admin. --MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Support- no concerns here. Reyk _YO! 16:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

   switching to strong support. If the worst that can be said of this candidate is that they are young, or that they have taken a month off, then they must be an excellent candidate indeed. Reyk _YO! 13:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

4. Support willing to tackle copyright and has shown clear understanding in content creation and improvement. clpo13_(talk) 16:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
5. Support after some time of sifting through contribs, I am convinced. In fact, this is the first time in several months I've felt truly enthusiastic about an RA candidate. I see solid work in admin areas, excellent content creation, and endorsement from some of Wikipedia's most respected admins. I could not care less about hat collecting three years ago. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 16:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

   Make that a strong support per all the ageism in the oppose section. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 00:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

   FWIW, I'll also say that I still stand by my support 100%. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

6. Support Both of your nominators were my nominators so I know they've carefully checked out you and your editing history and discussed this RfA process with you. I trust their judgment and will support. And the fact that you want to help out in the Copyright area is a big plus in my book! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
7. Support as co-nominator. I've watched Thine Antique Pen grow from an petulant youth to a mature young man. He's like a sponge, taking on advice whether he asked for it or not. He's a better writer than me, and has shown himself to be really willing to push forward the goal of creating an encyclopedia, writing about encyclopedic topics and high profile topics alike - and he's done it well. If he had not had that upset when he started, he would have been an admin a couple of years ago, I'm sure of that. I've held off longer than I would have for nominating for that reason, but I couldn't hold off any longer, he's a brilliant editor and will be a brilliant admin. Worm^TT(talk) 07:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
8. Support. The candidate is a content creator, so he knows about content. He's also willing to help out in admin areas, so that is a plus. Thine Antique Pen seems to be a user trustworthy of the admin tools. Epic Genius (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

   Moved to Total support after reading that this editor is 15 years old and yet can still act more mature than many adults. Epic Genius (talk) 00:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

9. Support: the hat collecting incidents appear to have occurred when the candidate was younger and significantly less mature; I won't post the age of them now here but that information hasn't been deleted. I think it's very condescending to tell a clearly competent person that they should be focusing on school work, although I can understand people opposing due to the candidate's seemingly young age. The user has an interest in a much ignored area (CCI) and has shown clear understanding of Wikipedia through their GA nominations, work on articles, CSD log etc. I'm particularly pleased to see them intending to work on this category, which seems very backlogged despite the fact that it's easy (albeit repetitive) work. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 18:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

   Since this looks like it's going to be close, I'm coming back to re-affirm support, and to try to counter what seem to be the main three reasons for opposes. (1) I disagree with the principle of opposing users primarily because they are underage; (2) I think that TAP is long past the stage of hat collecting; (3) I don't think the 'lack of attribution when translating' issues are big enough to oppose over. I personally provide much more attribution than a piped link in an edit summary when translating (not that I do it often), and I urge TAP to do so to in the future (their answer to question 12 is encouraging), but he was not breaking any rules. The DYK thing is concerning but does not convince me that they would be a net negative given the mop. I think it's very easy to say "you're doing well but come back in a while" but the fact is that people always say this at RfA and people would say it if TAP had waited another year before applying. I think TAP is ready now. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 21:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

10. Support per nom, Ritchie333 and and Bilorv. --Rubbish computer 18:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
11. Support A very prolific content writer that also has a fair amount of experience already doing administrative tasks. Arguably an ideal candidate right down to the two co-nominators. Mkdw^talk 18:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
12. Support and agree with both noms and Ritchie's analysis above. He needs the tools to be more effective in CCI and SPI.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
13. Support I've interacted with TAP in the past and I find him balanced and thoughtful. Good article space work on good subjects. Respected nominators. I think Ritchie's discussion of that old block is spot on. Work in CCI is an extra reason to support. --Stfg (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

    To reinforce my support: while opposes based on a view of the trustworthiness of that age group are legitimate, those that are saying he should use his time otherwise are not. That is up to him and his parents, not us. We aren't discussing how much time he's allowed to spend on Wikipedia, but only in what ways he's allowed to spend it. And I don't think "hat collecting" is a worthwhile consideration either: who cares why he wants to do it, so long as he does it well? To my mind, the rather excellent answers to the questions show me that TAP knows how to behave like an adult when he's among adults. That's enough maturity for me. --Stfg (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

14. Support It seems like the candidate has really learned from their past behaviour and has an impressive amount of experience with contributing to/improving articles. Their interest and involvement in admin-related areas is also clearly a plus. I think they'd be a great asset as an admin. Ririgidi (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
15. Support Solid user, well rounded and will use the tools well. Opposition concerns over age are unfounded especially without editorial evidence of immaturity; I was an admin at quite a young age without incident. Spencer^T♦C 19:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
16. Support I've seen TAP around, and like what I've seen. Was, honestly, unaware of his history—a clean start indeed. It's always good to have another admin willing to mop those difficult corners. Miniapolis 20:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
17. Support - MrX 20:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

    Support- CCI needs help and tools are absolutely essential to being able to work there effectively (there is a real need to be able to read deleted material and to delete and revision delete material). Based on the strength of the nominators' recommendation, I'm on board with this nominee. Carrite (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC) moving to oppose.

18. Support precious European quality, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

    Support Frankly, the age thing concerns me a bit, but as the father of a 16 year old, I'm very aware that some at those ages are very mature, and others are not. I'm more than willing to accept the assurances of the respected co-nominators that TAP, whom I don't know at all, is mature enough to be an admin. BMK (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC) moving to oppose

19. Support - Easy decision. Very solid editing and content creation history, evident command of core policies and guidelines, and a demonstrated commitment to the project over time. As one of my favorite RfA commentators likes to say: "no evidence of assholery." (At least not in recent history.) If I have one mild criticism of the candidate, it's that I would like to see more in-depth experience at AfD and a greater depth of understanding of the general notability guidelines and various specific notability by subject area. That said, I see a personality that is willing to grow and assume responsibility incrementally and will not over-reach himself in the steep learning curve phase of his adminship. If he makes mistakes, I trust he will recognize them and self-correct. Good luck, and please don't break the wiki. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
20. Support. Trusted user and prolific content creator. Age doesn't concern me: Teenagers can be mature, and are far more tech-savvy than the rest of us. It'll be good to see younger sysops. utcursch | talk 22:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
21. SUPPORT. First candidate I've supported per my criteria. Great work on articles... Compton–Belkovich Thorium Anomaly is an interesting read. JackTheVicar (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
22. Support excellent work that's all the more impressive if he's really as young as claimed. As for how he spends his time, well, I'm 500 million years old and I should really be doing my "schoolwork" too. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

    Reiterating support. I usually watchlist RfAs so I can see what comes up after I vote, and I guess I missed this one. The sourcing and attribution concerns are real, but they are fundamentally about sloppiness, not dishonesty or continuing immaturity. Sloppiness can be fixed and TAP has demonstrated that he's very good at responding to feedback. Responses based on nothing other than age should be discounted. We're not his parents and not in the business of determining what he or anyone should be exposed to; and contrary to popular half-belief-based-on-that-one-pop-psych-article-you-read-once, we don't actually know anything usefully predictive about TAP's neurons. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

    Yeah, I kinda think opposers on age should get discounted too. Is age relevant in RfAs or not? Now we gotta whole buncha dudes with niggly oppose votes. Are the crats gonna thank this Eric Corbett guy for raising an important issue. Or are they gonna bat him down for deliberately Poisoning the Well? Maybe he only made that cute comment cos of some issues with his own kids anyways? Maybe this whole RfA shuda been done over. Big Pizza Guy (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

23. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 23:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
24. Support - Cautiously, because I knew this RfA was coming and I was asked off-Wiki for my opinion and did my research. As a retired educator with 40 years or working with young people and having worked intensively at WP:PERM and seen all the hat collecting by younger editors, and having blocked dozens of delinquents on Wikipedia, I need a vast amount of convincing before I would suoport a bid for adminship from someone who hasn't even nearly reached the age of majority. However, in this instance I feel reassured by WTT and Yunshui and I'm not impressed by the lower section of this RfA which at the time of this vote is populated mainly by regular RfA opposers, and I certainly believe Thine Antique Pen's edit total of 61,000 to be somewhat more demonstrative of the workings of Wikipedia than those of one opposer's 93 edits to mainspace. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
25. Support When this user started out, he clearly made a lot of careless decisions. However, Thine Antique Pen has demonstrated he is capable of learning from his mistakes, and has become a strong contributor to Wikipedia. I am impressed by this user’s growth over time, and I believe that giving him the mop would be a strong net positive to this project. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
26. Support: good contributions; willing to work in one of the bowels of the encyclopedia (CCI), which is always useful. Opposition is wholly unconvincing and based on premises made up in five seconds of research. Esquivalience ^t 00:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
27. Support I see no reason not to support this candidate. Those opposing because this user is young would make a more convincing argument if they pointed out immature behaviour. Short of that I don't see it as a valid reason to oppose. It is not as though age and wisdom go hand in hand. I will reconsider if a serious issue with this candidate is brought up but I am supporting for now. HighInBC 01:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

    We need more young, enthusiastic, and energetic admins; there are too many jaded, inert grumps in the current group. (It's probably no secret that I have very little tolerance for RfA objections based solely on age.) The only oppose vote so far that gives me pause is Sasata's, but three years is a very long time, and I'm willing to accept the candidate had simply forgotten that the page suffered from severe sourcing problems. Best of luck. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

    How dare you call me grumpy! You should respect your elders! <grumble> <grumble> HighInBC 01:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC) This is of course a joke

    Adults these days... – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

    Get off my lawn, you damn kids. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

    I'm indenting my support in light of Wbm1058's recent post, which suggests that the candidate's intentions aren't always clear. I'm positive TAP wouldn't abuse the tools in any way, but I can no longer be sure that they're in the encyclopedic state of mind all of the time. My previous comments about the need for younger admins still holds true, and I stand by all of my other comments at this RfA—I continue to believe "too young" is shockingly poor justification for opposing an RfA—but the legitimate issues have grown to the point where a support on principle is no longer appropriate. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

    Support I don't see age as an issue here, look at Mozart as a famous example. The biggest mistake is to underestimate people. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

    Actually, Mozart would have made a really terrible admin. Not dissing his contributions to content, of course. --Stfg (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

    Struck my support per Softlavender below. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

28. Support Civil and competent with an impressive record of contributions. Antrocent (♫♬) 01:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

    Support – Concerns brought up by opposing arguments are not convincing in the least, especially the seemingly obligatory oppose by Andrew D. Age is of no concern to me; demeanor supersedes how many times you've circled around the sun. If there were concrete arguments of immaturity presented by the candidate, then claims of being to young can be used. I know many minors who are far more mature than "adults", and TAP fits the bill. I see no outstanding reason that this editor will abuse the tools and I am happy to support accordingly. Of course, I will check in again later on to review answers to forthcoming questions. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC) Rescinding support based on recent comments/findings by Yngvadottir and Iridescent. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

29. Support No issues. Jianhui67 ^T★C 03:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
30. Support. TAP seems to completely satisfy all my criteria. Despite his earlier history of immaturity and hat-collecting, it is obvious that he has matured greatly since then. I've seen him around, and he seems to be a very level-headed editor who is dedicated to improving the encyclopedia. Although I am admittedly a bit more cautious if I know the candidate is young, this is one young editor who a certainly trust with the admin tools. I find a few of the opposes to be unnecessarily patronizing. --Biblioworm 03:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

    Support this,,, .. THIS is EXACTLY the type of editor we want to be inheriting the work that's been done here. To be honest, I am usually (85-90% of the time) in the camp seen below; but not because of age - because of maturity, and there IS a big difference. All too often I've seen youngish editors come in, gather some support, get a few edits under their belt - then petulantly act like they know better than all the rest of the community. Editors who have tried to help these "young'uns" often feel as if they've wasted their time, and it's very disheartening. But I digress.

    We've had some execellent "under 21" admins in the past (a prolific and sage stormchaser & photographer, a vandal fighter that made the original cluebot look like a slug, etc. I won't name names, but hopefully JC, JD, PS, L, C, SZ, and others know how much I respect both them, and their work)

    I've watched since TAP entered our community. They've learned from their mistakes. The've learned from watching, from listening, from asking - the key being, they are open to learning and growing.

    Do listen to the opposes - put your education above Wiki, and if a time-crunch of researching a problem on wiki conflicts with bettering your r/l - let someone else get the wiki. You have some big shoes to fill TAP, but I have faith that you can do it. — Ched :  ?  04:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC) I want to look over a few concerns which have been brought up. — Ched :  ?  16:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC) moved to neutral— Ched :  ?  14:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

31. Support. Thought he was already a sysop. sst✈ 05:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
32. Belated nom support (been ill, sorry). Yunshui ^雲_水 06:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

    Hope you're better. Miniapolis 13:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

33. Support - Don't know the candidate, our paths never crossed but when idiots oppose based on age, I will support the candidate..rather have a 15 year old mature admin than a 50 year old dumb one living in their parents basement.--Stemoc 07:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
34. The fact that Thine Antique Pen is editing constructively on a website where you can write virtually anything on any page is proof enough for me that he is mature for his age. Most other fifteen year olds would rather play World of Tanks on their smartphones, and the ones who do make some sort of contribution to Wikipedia aren't generally adding anything that would be categorized as "constructive". TAP is an experienced and prolific editor who knows what he's doing and can definitely be trusted with adminship. Kurtis ^(talk) 08:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

    Reaffirming my support despite the concerns cited by Fram in the oppose column. The Earwig makes a convincing argument in TAP's favour. Kurtis ^(talk) 16:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

35. Support because I see no good reason not to. Maturity is demonstrated by actions, not age; I couldn't care less about alleged misdeeds from three years ago; and consistent activity levels should not be a requirement for the administrator hat - many people simply don't have consistent amounts of free time, but that does not stop them from contributing when they are able. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
36. Support - Being 16 years old I'm very aware that some at those ages are very mature, and others are not. I'm more than willing to accept the assurances of the respected co-nominators that TAP, whom I don't know at all, is mature enough to be an admin. But having a look through I do believe he has the maturity for an administrator. I have noticed boys in my class not that mature, this is a person who acts above his age. Therefore I do want him to become an admin :)--EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 09:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
37. Support Youth and competence are not mutually exclusive and 'twould seem TAP is a fast learner.  Philg88 ^♦talk 10:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
38. Support. I'm very impressed with the way that TAP has matured and learned from his block and cannot foresee him misusing the tools. Thryduulf (talk) 12:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
39. Support(x15 or err 16...whatever) --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 12:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
40. Remember the name from some good and thoughtful interactions. Older than our youngest ever bureaucrat was at the time of his promotion, too, if the opposers are to be believed. No big deal. —Kusma (t·c) 12:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

    Strongly per about a dozen completely off-topic oppose votes. —Kusma (t·c) 09:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

41. Support I don't see age as a reason to oppose, and in this specific case we can see the progression and maturity over the years from his early editing, as well as his forthcoming answer to Q3. I think he would be a good candidate, especially given his active work in copyright issues. --  R45  ^talk! 13:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
42. Support - A new one on me and I'm going largely on trust for the individuals who have nominated him and are supporting him. Why not accept that a young(er) person can mature quickly and has the right motivation not to abuse the trust others have placed in him? Deb (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

    Support. Julian makes a solid argument, as always. - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

    Sigh. Opposing per Fram. - Dank (push to talk) 14:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

43. Support - Age concerns come secondary to behavioral and temperament concerns. The very fact that I'm so surprised that TAP is so young is a testament to the fact that this candidate is probably more mature and responsible than many of the adult admins and editors we already have to deal with, and he would seem to have a better personality too. That's what's important. He has ample experience in the project space, ranging from the mundane to the highly specialized, to demonstrate that he would be a competent admin, but most notably has contributed a hell of a lot more to the encyclopedia itself than I ever have. Everything I see demonstrates a strong commitment to the project, an understanding of our policies, a wide breadth of experience, and a clueful, mature, and civil personality. Swarm ♠ 15:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

    Support to cancel out these age oppose votes. Secret (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC) striking vote by banned user sst✈ 10:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

44. Support I've seen him around for quite some time, and never had any idea he was younger than me... Age doesn't matter to me (OK - in certain legally defined areas it does: I'm not letting him drive my car...). It's suitability for the job. My only reservation (no, that's not a reference to a recently withdrawn AfD) is that he might suffer burnout too early. If he feels he's going that way, I hope he spots it and takes a break. If someone can understand copyright issues at his age, he'll do. I have trouble getting them through to people a lot older (than both of us) off-wiki in another position I hold. Peridon (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
45. Strongly Support I was most impressed when Worm That Turned stated "He is always willing to ask for advice if he's unsure and is considerate of his actions." This shows an emotional maturity that is extremely needed on Wikipedia. Now, I rarely wade into this confrontational arena that's officially known as the RfA page, but could not let this particular discussion pass unchallenged. If there is no policy in place which excludes a person based on his or her age, then the fact that Thine Antique Pen may or may not be under 18 or 21 or 35... is not an issue. Ageism does not apply only to the old, but also to the young and in this instance, a member of the Wikipedia community, who has spent the past three years quietly improving the project is being discriminated against by some among us and I say that's not right and any comments on his age are inappropriate and unfair. The fact that this young person has made mistakes and learned from them, then spent the remainder of his time here focused on improving articles and in-depth maintenance tasks rather than seeking and causing trouble, tells me that he would do his best to be fair, he would seek counsel and heed advice from his mentors, he would continue to contribute rather than detract and perhaps, with more young people coming with an attitude of humble willingness to learn, we might attract and retain editors who genuinely care deeply about looking after the necessary tasks required to make this project the best that it can be.Rhondamerrick (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
46. Support - the valid opposes are age-based, (I'm more concerned about actions), old mistakes (I note user has acknowledged them, and has done nothing similar in recent history), and instances of apparent unofficial wikibreaks (I think this can be a good tool to avoid burnouts). As the candidate seems to have plenty of CLUE and civility, I see no reason not to support. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
47. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
48. Support Some of opposers are opposing because Thine is assumed to be 15 year old kid. Ok, is it really good reason to oppose? Now time has changed, these days 15-16 year old kids are getting Nobel Peace Prize then why not adminship of Wikipedia? I think there should be no issue of age as long as he is doing nice. Getting adminship in early years of his life will inspire him for rest of his life to do some good work.--Human3015^TALK  21:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
49. Support. I felt compelled to re-read the recent discussion on "assisted retirement" at Jimbo's archive to get the full comic effect. Dear John seemed to be saying "what are these old gits doing here, wasting their time on Wikipedia articles, when they could be focusing on their bingo in the communal day room?" So, good luck TAP - hope you have a happy landing. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
50. Support...no evidence they will abuse the tools.--MONGO 00:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
51. Support - The age-based opposes don't bother me in the slightest - There are some people in the world that are young and mature...., The rough start isn't an issue either as lets be honest who had a brilliant start here ? ... I'd bet not many, Anyway excellent candidate, No issues, Good luck :) –Davey2010^Talk 00:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
52. support I understand the age-based opposes and think they are reasonable concerns. But I've seen this editor in action quite a bit and have seen almost entirely good things. I'd rather judge them by their record of editing than self-disclosed information that probably won't matter in any case. Hobit (talk) 02:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

    Just noting that I've read the opposes carefully--there are a number of folks there whose opinion I respect quite a bit. But I'm not seeing anything to change my opinion. He may well be chasing badges, but that is hard to divine. And not even a huge indicator of a future problem. Hobit (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

53. Support I've had the pleasure of working with TAP in the past, and hope to do so in the future. Legoktm (talk) 04:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
54. Support. I can't see any reason he wouldn't do well with the tools. The age-related opposes don't bother me all that much - maturity is more important than age. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
55. Support – Not seeing any reason not to support candidate. Notion that their age will all of a sudden change their editing patterns and or compitency once they gain tools, is uttery absurd. @Thine Antique Pen: All the best! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
56. Support Per nominator, a well experienced user who deserve the mop with no evidence of misusing the tools. Ayub407^talk 06:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
57. Support Wholeheartedly, per the nominators. Pedro :  Chat  07:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
58. Support - Age by itself shouldn't matter, only the maturity displayed in editing. The nominee looks great by all accounts. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
59. Support Clear reason for wanting tools. Good broad mix of contributions. Refreshing absence of escalating argy-bargy (for instance, [1]). @Age warriors: for the majority of RfA candidates we haven't a clue if they are 9 or 99 and have to judge based on their record and statements; so should we here: Noyster (talk), 11:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
60. Support - age is just a number. GiantSnowman 12:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
61. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Regarding the age issue, I agree with our practice of having no minimum age for adminship, which has worked well for us over the years and still does. What is important for administrators of any age is that they exercise good judgment as to what issues to deal with and which to leave to others. There do exist a handful of types of situations (legal threats, serious harassment problems) that younger admins should generally leave to their older colleagues. These represent well under 1% of issues that admins deal with and I trust the candidate's judgment in recognizing them. The well-meaning if paternalistic concern that the candidate should not allow Wikipedia to distract him from more important things is neutralized by the fact that the candidate has periods of inactivity, which presumably represent times when he was focused on more important things. Nor draw no lines here (against) Thine Antique Pen. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

    "Some say thy fault is youth, some wantonness; Some say thy grace is youth and gentle sport." Martinevans123 (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

    Thanks for that link, Brad! I never knew where his username came from. Distinguished lineage indeed. --MelanieN (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

62. Support quite strongly, after reading some of the opposes below. Widr (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
63. Strong support what's there to say as an oppose? Nominated by two trusted editors, and the answers to the questions are very good. I think that the opposes based on age are unfounded. There have been some really good admins who we've known to be under 18, and as some people point out above, it's possible there are more that we don't know about. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 17:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
64. Support - The opposition to this RfA because of Pen's age is quite silly in my opinion. There is no age restriction to being an administrator; it should be the user's on-wiki contributions and history that are considered, and nothing outside of it. Pen's age (among any other personal information outside of Wikipedia) is not a deciding factor in my decision to support, and is... quite frankly... absolutely none of my business or concern. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
65. Support - I paused when I saw the prospective candidate was 15-16 years old, but quickly became satisfied when I looked over the answers to the questions, questions that are so painfully cookie-cutter and quiz-like that they made me take two extra strength Tylenol. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
66. Support, per the well-written rationale by Newyorkbrad, above. Good luck to you candidate, — Cirt (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
67. Support I worked with TAP in his early days, and recognised his enthusiasm and willingness to improve. He has made valuable contributions to many areas in Wikipedia now. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
68. Samir 23:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
69. Support Definite WP:NETPOSITIVE to the project, and a very valuable contributor. I suppose I myself can't sway the oppose !voters' notion that teenagers cannot have the mop, since I am a teenager myself, but I personally believe that age ≠ competence. There are children that are more competent and intelligent than many adults I know. And there are definitely adults that behave like children. We have a potential mop-wielder that's eager to help out with the project, and we need all the help we can get. Why turn him away? --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 23:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
70. Support. Hmmm. Giving the bit to an admitted (but reformed) hat collector? I don't see age as a problem here, but I have no problem with opposers drawing an absolute but arbitrary line on age. Q1 is refreshingly strong: a mention of CSD and long log to go with it; AfD reasonable diagonal and pleads policy. Q3 is weak for me but says the right things; I'd like links and more about the candidate dealing with difficult editors rather than being the difficult editor. There are some clear strengths here. Glrx (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

    Coming back to comment. When I voted my biggest concern was changing "poisonous" to "inedible" when sources were saying either poisonous or inedible/possibly poisonous. The opposition has gotten stronger, and a crucial point is an absence of depth. Instead of knowing how to build a GA, the candidate starts with one from another wiki and mechanically translates it. Some translations distorted content; some are sloppy because the mechanical tool translated foreign book titles and the candidate did not correct the error. That lack of attention weighs heavily on me. The usual content contributor has a personal interest in a subject, has read many sources, and can weigh sources. An editor might write about the civil war battle that happened just down the road. I'm not sure that this editor is interested in fungi or French coal mines. FA/GA has not been an RfA requirement for me. Apparently Q2's best works have been mechanical translations, and that makes me suspicious of overall perspective. I posed the Q15 copyright question, and the answer is satisfactory as far as it goes, but I was looking for more depth and a tie-in to Q1. The answer leaves me uneasy. I'll repeat that I see opposition based solely on age as reasonable. Live with a teenager and you will see that teen randomly flip back and forth between child-like and adult behavior. Each of us will weigh characteristics differently. Glrx (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

71. Support. I have supported at least a few young editors' RfAs and they have not disappointed to date. I have seen at least a few other young editors such as k6ka make valuable contributions. I do not find the opposers to be (fill in uncomplimentary words from above), however. I believe age can be a genuine concern in many cases and believe the opposers' position is not generally unreasonable. But we do have the ability to evaluate a candidate's contributions, interactions, judgments and civility at Wikipedia. I think a line probably needs to be drawn at some age. But when looking at a candidate with a large number of valuable and mature contributions, the line would be drawn not just at a certain age but on a sliding scale with consideration of maturity, civility and editing history taken into account. I think that I actually still may be asking for more from a young candidate. But TPA has had a good record and many valuable contributions after some initial stumbles a few years ago. He has displayed competence in administrative-type editing. So I find him to be a definite WP:NETPOSITIVE. More substantively, per nom, ^(talk), Bilorv, Biblio, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, Swarm, Dirtlawyer1 and others with similar reasons and comments. Donner60 (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
72. Support I think you're more than qualified for the position. Sasata's oppose is definitely worth taking to heart, but I don't see it as a valid reason for opposing adminship. —Soap— 04:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

    The newer opposes make some good strong arguments, but Im not backing down because I dont think theyre relevant to the areas of adminship you want to work in. —Soap— 17:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

73. Support the content creation and support from Yunshui, WTT, Kudpung and Richie333 convince me that Thine Antique Pen will be able to effectively wield the mop. My interactions with him have been positive, the Sasata's oppose gave me pause and I hope TPA has learnt their lesson from that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
74. Support per Ritchie and Kudpung. Jim Carter 08:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
75. Support excellent editor with strong contributions in all relevant areas (content, maintenance, civil during interactions, etc.) Wikipedia will definitely improve overall when TAP becomes an administrator. Actions speak louder than a number. Whether someone is 10 years old or 100 shouldn't be a concern. The opposes also haven't brought any evidence that younger admins cause more damage to the encyclopedia when promoted compared to older admins and those that do not identify their age. Because there isn't any. Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
76. Support. Despite his age, this user shows considerably more maturity and good judgement than some of those in the "Oppose" section. No indication that the tools will be misused. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC).
77. Support Tremendous content contributor. Age is irrelevant, and should not have been revealed in the first place. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
78. Support Has learned a lot in AfD for sure - understanding why some articles should be kept (and Twitter-articles should not <g>). Copyright is all-too-often abused on Wikipedia, and having someone willing to act on complaints and not "sofixit" retorts will be good. I can see why "age is important" gets raised - but, IMHO, how one acts in a broad range of areas is more important still. Collect (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
79. Support purely in an attempt to counteract some of the age discrimination below. Age is no guarantee of a quality admin. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
80. The alleged age doesn't greatly bother me, in the past we have had plenty of fine admins this young and younger, as NewYorkBrad has pointed out there are few things which young admins should avoid. As for comparisons with voting, people mature at different ages, some things like voting rights are granted automatically at an age when almost everyone should be mature enough. This is more a situation where we as a group can assess whether we think the candidate shows sufficient maturity. Thus far I'm not seeing anything immature and only one error in CSD tagging (Thine Antique Pen, you usually get the but about leaving A1 and A3 tags for a few minutes, so I won't oppose over one mistake). Taking wikibreaks of a month or two is also a plus in my book not a negative. ϢereSpielChequers 16:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
81. I've known a number of excellent eds. (and some good admins.) of similar ages, and there are undoubtedly others equally good whose age has never come to my attention. I think this candidate will be another good example of this high quality. DGG ( talk ) 17:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
82. Support - I may have a bias since I've been editing since I was 13, but age isn't an issue for me if an editor still shows maturity and thoughtfulness. It's not difficult for younger editors to outperform and act maturer than many older ones. Beyond that, Thine has performed well across the board and I have no doubts about granting them the mop. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
83. Support, per all the oppose votes. Max Semenik (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
84. The number of years he's been around outweighs the age concerns for me. --Rschen7754 20:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
85. Support. Trustworthy and has diversified experience. --JustBerry (talk) 22:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
86. Support. Can be trusted. -- œ^™ 22:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
87. Support - both antique, and a pen. Moreover has been seen around the project being constructive. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC).
    
88. Above, there are editors who have supported, and then came back to say that they support strongly. I am not one of them. Below, there are editors who are opposing on the basis of concerns about maturity. Their concerns are valid, and I came within nanometers of being one of them. So we have a candidate whose statement indicates that the first area where he wants to use the tools is at WP:CCI, and now it turns out that he has claimed GA credit for pages that he plagiarized from other-language Wikipedias. That would, right there, be a good enough reason for me to oppose. I sure hope that there aren't such problems with the numerous pages he has created about Acropora coral species, because we really need more pages about cnidarian species. So, Thine Antique Pen, please hear me on the following. WP:CC BY-SA is not a license to reuse Wikimedia content freely, including derivative and commercial use; it is a license to do so with attribution. And attribution is easy! You can use the templates pointed out by Dirtlawyer1 below, but an edit summary for a null edit does not suffice. Plagiarism is more than a violation of Wikipedia norms. It is morally and ethically wrong. It's like stealing, but instead of stealing someone's money it's stealing someone's effort, time, and ideas. When you get to college, if you do it in your schoolwork you'll wind up with a permanent F on your transcript. OK, so how did I just barely end up supporting anyway? I'm seeing an intelligent and well-meaning young person who has proven to editors I trust that, after making mistakes, he learns from those mistakes and does better. So I'm going to trust that he will learn from this, and that he will go slow at first so as not to overreach. Please don't disappoint me. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
89. Support. What admin task is so important that you have to be of a certain age to do it? Is a so-called mature editor going to be insulted when they're warned or blocked by someone much younger than them? Good. —Xezbeth (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

    I'm not going to comment on every support, but brava. Yes. I wonder if that's somehow a factor. And if so, wonderful. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

90. Support I've said this before at Rfa, and I'll say it again. I have seen some of the worst, immature, disruptive truly appalling behaviour here from people -- let's be clear: mostly men -- of my age, which is to say, middle age. (Or in my case, well into middle age, bumping up against retirement age.) And I have seen much sterling, thoughtful behaviour from editors in their teens. I think this a terrible reason to oppose, in fact, I think it should be disallowed as a reason to oppose. Wikipedia has always been intended as a meritocracy and to take an ageist approach to adminship is a violation of that most basic value. I wish -- I fervently do wish -- that chronological age really was a guarantor of "maturity." As someone born in the 1950s, I can tell you sadly it is not so. Oh, and if this is close, I would urge the 'crats to take note of how many opposes were based solely on ageist grounds, which would then render the Rfa result that much less close. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

    Sorry, I find I have yet more to say. (God, we senior citizens are a cranky fucking bunch.) But if any editors prefer a wiki where editors are based not on what they do but who they are, well, Citizendium awaits. Knock yourselves out. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

91. Support Good content creation, seems okay. eurodyne (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
92. Support. Age ≠ Competence and people seem to be confusing the two. I've been sitting this out so far to see if someone came up with any examples of TAP being "childish", but without evidence proving otherwise, I see no reason not to grant him adminship. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
93. Support Spent a while thinking on this. My baseline expectations appear to be satisfied (and for the record, I do consider translation as a form of content creation - stylistic features and presentation don't carry across languages well, I've noticed, you generally need to write them from anew to satisfy different style guidelines between wikis as well) and the CCI and copyright things are parts that need some workforce. Much of the opposition is based on supposition, it seems - lots of assertions but no evidence, and we've had young administrators in the past with no issues. The concerns noted by Carrite and Sasata are over three years old, too old to be relevant today especially in young editors which tend to change more between the years.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

94. This RfA has been subject to a number of oppose votes with a few common themes. I feel obligated to address them as I write, being so late to the party.

    There are those who believe that he has not grown "enough" to be "mature", or in other words... what, exactly? They cite not diffs of his "childish" behaviour, but rather western voting and driving laws; they base their votes in RfA not on what actually exists, but instead on abstract western political and legal devices that were made without any regard for RfA. They present us with a nebulous hand-wave that doesn't even approach a mildly plausible, ad-hoc explanation. It's obvious that these age-related opposes are weak because they fail to demonstrate any correlation between his youth, his contributions, and his supposed "immaturity". And further, much weaker than the claims on which the argument is grounded is the substance of it.

    It is suggested, without any trace of sarcasm, that TAP should be "focusing on schoolwork". We've already seen, as Andrew Davidson was kind enough to point out, that he has the ability to take long breaks from Wikipedia when schoolwork ramps up; it's ridiculous to call on him to "focus on schoolwork" when he already does so very well, and much more. He has the initiative and foresight to partition his timeproductively, and the self-discipline to follow through, all traits that are desirable in the real world as well as Wikipedia.

    Or perhaps it is suggested that he has better things to do than edit Wikipedia? Who is any Wikipedian to decide what he should be invested in, and what does this have to do with whether he is fit for adminship? I'm sure that there is no degree-granting institvte that would turn down a 16-year-old who truly cares about a field to the point of, say, being academically published in algebraic topology. TAP is invested in a project that really means something to him. There are thousands of ways to make the world a better place. This one is his.

    All taken into consideration, we have no significant evidence that allowing TAP to become an admin will harm Wikipedia any more than if we did not, but rather, as evidenced by all the above, the diametric opposite. He is fit to expand his contributions to Wikipedia with adminship; I have no doubt that he will be successful in such pursuits. He is an accomplished, intelligent, and involved editor who can handle the workload and stress of the extended toolset. His actions support that. And though his actions include many incredibly stupid things, I have faith that he has learned tremendously from this past week and will not do them again; he can learn, and he does, and that's what really matters. I strongly support this nomination.

    I also congratulate you on your place in WP:100 which you will receive tomorrow. Good night.

    →Σσς. (Sigma) 06:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

95. Support as a content creator who has demonstrated personal growth, definite passion, and an all-too-rare ability to learn from mistakes. - Dravecky (talk) 06:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
96. Support I owe him one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
97. Support I gave him the user rights he has on Commons back in 2012, and I had no idea he was a kid. Maybe the name just sounded old... He's always acted mature when I've seen him around and I count that higher than a mere number (unless it was a 9 year-old or something of course). I've seen plenty of admins and editors who're quite a bit older than 15 who've had some very immature moments. I've had some myself (like being only the 2nd admin this year to get de-sysopped on Commons, the other being Russavia, who I was de-sysopped for attacking with the tools [lovely irony to be paired with him on the 2015 de-sysop list over there]). I think TAP'll do fine with the tools, and he isn't getting any younger... (this is INeverCry BTW - I'm working on getting my main acct password reset at the moment, after scrambling it like an idiot and taking off - I should have my main acct back by Tuesday, but I decided to vote now because I didn't want to miss out on supporting a good candidate... Jeff the Obscure 08:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
98. Support I first came across TAP in 2013 when he nominated a batch of DYKs on chameleons which were pretty poor articles. His contributions have improved enormously since then and I have recently reviewed his FAC nomination. I am sure he will learn to use the tools admirably. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
99. Support I don't have any concerns. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
100. Support. We need more admins, and CCI is one of backlogged areas (and rightly so). I don't have issues with the candidate's age. No such user (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
101. Support Easily deserves it. Parabolist (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
102. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
103. Support Had no idea he was so young until I read it here. I've seen TAP at RFPP and he generally makes worthwhile requests; also, anyone who works at CCI is on the side of the angels (I can't do any it anymore after clearing 45 days of WP:CV backlog entirely by myself, resulting in burnout not only on copyright problems but on the project). His maturity level is greater than that of many editors (geez, people, just look at ANI!) and I feel we have no right to say that the young whippersnappers should spend more time on their studies and less time on girls/boys/lizards/Wikipedia, as we have no insight into their daily lives. He's level-headed and I have complete confidence that the attribution/sourcing issues raised by opposers can be fixed and improved. KrakatoaKatie 19:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
104. Support I'm going to just ignore the attempted WP:OUTING below and state that everything I've seen from this candidate's edit history over the last couple of years gives me no reason to believe they'd be anything other than a net positive as an administrator. I'm not going to hold 3-year-old mistakes or accusations by others against an otherwise competent admin candidate. --Ahecht (TALK
     PAGE) 20:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
105. Support. Age is not a issue, per se. My impression has been that the very young administrators and bureaucrats have been for less trouble than some of the middle aged. Appears well qualified, nothing in the oppose section persuades me that there is risk of accepting this candidate's offer to volunteer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
106. Will be a net-positive to the project as an admin. Kharkiv07 (T) 02:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
107. Support - I have seen TAP back when he got into trouble and I have seen him recover. From causing all that mess, he has come very far. He has proved his worth and has become a valuable asset to the site. What's the best quality about him is that he learns from his mistakes and makes it right. He has admitted to his faults and fixed them. I value honesty above all and my support isn't just about that. He has been doing a great job as an editor and he would be an excellent admin. There's nothing in his edits of last few years that would possibly suggest that he would misuse the tools. I have full faith in this candidate. He made mistakes, admitted them, learned from them and has worked hard towards making it right and he has made it right. He is a good content editor with enough experience in admin related areas who has been editing positively and not making the mistakes that he made. Anyone who can learn from their past and improve from that has my support, which TAP clearly has. Yash! 03:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
108. Support with reservations = weak support:

     The strong nominations by estabished, well-trusted members of the community speak volumes, so I started off in my mind with "strong support." While it's admittedly unfair to the vast majority of candidates who don't have a 'crat with oversight privileges who has known them for years speak up for them, the fact that you do means someone that the community already trusts to a very very high degree not only trusts you but is willing to put his reputation on the line for you and (and this is part where I'm not being fair) it means you start off with "strong support" from me right out of the chute. If the same editor had written the same nomination but he had never had any formal positions above "administrator" your "starting support" would be lower and I might be in the "neutral" column rather than the "weak support" column. Whether you are promoted or not, you should thank your nominators for their nominations and for working with you over the last few years, and you should realize the vast majority of candidates aren't as lucky as you are. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

     Then I read the "opposes." Some of the non-age-related opposes, particularly those surrounding apparently-careless (at best) references make me wonder if similar mistakes will be made with the mop. I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt and assume it's a side-effect of both the heavy editing (a small % bad-edit rate of a very large number of edits = a noticeable number of bad edits) this person does and, in the case of the apparently-bogus reference in Amanita eliae (thanks Carrite) and the fact that the objectionable references were added to the page back in 2012 and that the "recent" part of the mistake was moving it into mainspace before cleaning it up.

     As for age being an issue: Age per se isn't an issue for the admin bit (being a legal adult is an issue for oversight and checkuser and by extension a few other roles, and policies rightfully make it so [if it were me I would replace the "must be 18" with "must be a legal adult" recognizing that emancipated minors should count but people over 18 with court-appointed guardians should not]) but maturity or lack of it is an issue. For people under a certain age (low- to mid-20s), maturity is highly correlated with age, and maturity issues that might come into play in an admin capacity don't always show through in normal editing. Any admin candidate who is either known to be under about 18-20 or who my initial "sense" is that he has the maturity level of someone under 18-20 will have me looking harder for evidence that they have the necessary maturity to be a good admin. In this particular case, however, being nominated by well-respected nominators, particularly one who has worked with him for several years, sets aside any concerns I might have had over the editor's maturity - I simply assume that they've already done their homework and would not nominate you if there was any reason to be concerned about the candidate's maturity.

     My advice to this editor if he gets the mop and to every other newly-promoted admin: Start slow, get mentors or at least have other admins review your first few dozen uses of the mop in any particular area, and put all guideline and policy pages and Template:Centralized discussion on your watchlist so you can keep up with changes. If you leave for more than a month or two, go back and re-read all policies and guidelines. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

109. Moved from neutral. This is a tough call—I am still not fully satisfied by the responses to the DYK sourcing issue—but the words of support above from many people I highly respect have convinced me to move here. And, honestly, it comes with a bit of frustration at the age-based opposes. People who know me know that I dislike opposing qualified candidates, and in this case I just can't come up with strong reasons why giving TAP the mop would be a detriment to our encyclopedia. Surely the issue with Amanita eliae should not have happened in the first place, but mistakes are allowed as long as we learn from them. TAP has demonstrated an impressive amount of maturity and does not strike me as the type to hold grudges or refuse to be held accountable when he does something wrong. So, with that: good luck! (Also, to the people opposing for purely age reasons: I repeat my challenge for you to tell me why I or any other admin who went through a successful RfA as a minor (younger than TAP, even) should not have been promoted. RfAs should be opposed based on evidence, not baseless "what-if"s.) — Earwig ^talk 07:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
110. Largely per NYB. There have been numerous admins in the past younger than this individual who have proven themselves to be competent and qualified. I do have some concerns with the translation issues noted by some above and below but on the whole I still find the user to be clueful and competent in the areas in which they wish to act. NativeForeigner ^Talk 11:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
111. Support: A net positive. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
112. Support Per my wont, I checked chunks of contribs and talk page activity. I found a lot of reasons to trust TAP. Mistakes? He has made them and then corrected them. He will likely make mistakes with new tools and will correct them on advice and maybe with help of more experienced admins. Far older admins have made worse mistakes. Thans to NYB for expressing much of what I wanted to say. A trout for Emily who didn't have "a truly nuanced understanding" on acquiring new buttons. TAP has continuously improved his knowledge and activities here and evidence is that he will continue to improve. I expect competence and caution now and look forward to TAP becoming an excellent sysop. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 20:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
113. Support: I see someone willing to do the work that needs doing. I see someone who has made a lot of real contributions and who has done few stupid things. I don't see examples of recent behavior that show immaturity.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
114. Support - looks like a good candidate. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
115. Support - I am a long time ip editor who has had a few run ins with TAP over the years (mostly on science articles) and I respect his work. Any oppose over his age needs to be struck. He made a few mistakes, but Worm and Yunshi think that he learned from them you have to trust them. If you have a problem with him plagiarizing articles,than have him stay away from Copyright thing for a few months after he becomes an admin. I think that if he didn't admit he was a teen, most of the opposes wouldn't have been made. People are looking for excuses to vote against him. Please look at the positives. Not every candidate will be a Ritchie333 or a SamWalton. 9845Mikeahl (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
116. Support" I looked over his contributions and I think he will be a good admin. Also, in my opinion any oppose votes that are based upon an age requirement that does not exist in policy should be discounted. If you want a lower age limit for admins, post an RfC and try to get the community to agree with you. Oh, wait, you only need 25% support to torpedo an RfA here but you need well over 50% support to change the criteria for becoming an admin. Does anyone else see a problem with that? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
117. Support I'm aware I'm spitting in the wind at this point, but I'd just like to cancel out at least one of the votes based on Thine Antique Pen possibly being in school. I wouldn't have done as well in college if it wasn't for skills I picked up in Wikipedia, so I'm totally down with letting schoolkids do stuff here. Yes, yes, with the standard "as long as they do their homework" caveat -- but that caveat is not an exclusionary principle. Were it so, by the same reasoning, I should not be an admin because I "should focus more" on writing lesson plans and grading papers. I don't think that being a student is a qualification, but it should not be the basis for excluding someone from being an admin. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

     Good point Ian. I agree. Everyone has real life duties which sometimes have to take priority over Wiki. If it's not going to school, it could be working hard in your career or supporting your family. Nobody of any age should spend so much time here that they jeopardise the rest of their life's goals and responsibilities. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

118. Support. Candidate has wide experience across maintenance and content areas, and has demonstrated competence in both. Approach seems calm, sensible and mature. Demeanor during a difficult RfA has been exemplary. The quibbles in the Oppose column over attribution seem nugatory and some of them framed to be inflammatory... the candidate has made minor mistakes but RfA candidates are not required to be absolute perfection. Nothing presented raises any serious concerns. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. I will not ask how old the candidate is, I will simply say that I believe that schoolchildren should be focusing on their schoolwork, not wasting their time as administrators here. Eric Corbett 17:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

   Discussion moved to the talk page. Esquivalience ^t 20:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Per Eric Corbett. The candidate self-identified in 2012 on their user page as being 12-years old. User_talk:Tomtomn00/Archives/11#Hello That information, and other self-identifying information, was, quite properly,subsequently removed by an admin for protection of this minor's identity.User_talk:Tomtomn00/Archives/12#Your_userpage I do not think that any 15-year old, no matter how precocious is mature enough to be handed the mop. Banks Irk (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose Sadly I'm going to have to oppose. Back in 2012 during a ANI discussion (I'm not saying which), TAP ridiculed me and turned my attempts to correct my mistakes into a self-indulgent 'racing game'. It was one of those things that contributed to my year and a half retirement, and I remember him joining in on the 'witch hunt' that turned my life (both on and off-wiki) into a misery at the time. I'll always remember how irrational and spiteful people can be. JAGUAR  22:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

   Just to clarify, you're opposing him over something he said three years ago? ‑ iridescent 22:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

   Are you referring to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Jaguar? I don't see any ridicule, and after the discussion was over, TAP gave you a barnstar requesting you not to leave. I'd like to know more about the alleged "witch hunt", though. If this accusation is true, it'll impact my support vote, no matter how old the incident is. utcursch | talk 22:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

   Just want to point out that I was involved in that mess and while TAP's comments, at the time, were not helpful, they were in no way ridiculing. A thorough read of that ANI will give a clear picture of the situation back then. If not, like I said I had some hand in it, I'll be happy to explain on this or my talk page. However, it's old soup and not really worth chewing over again. Blackmane (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

4. Oppose I check the candidate's contributions for April and find he only made 5 edits. I check May and find he didn't make any edits at all. I check June and find a big splurge of automated/mechanical edits. Judging by the topics – easy, rote stuff like beetle species – I get the impression that he's still hat collecting – just going through the motions to level-up. Andrew D. (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)'

   Discussion moved to the talk page. Epic Genius (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

   The nominator WTT started another discussion on my talk page, urging me to look at some more varied topics created by the candidate. I agree that they demonstrate a good variation of theme but I am now quite concerned by some other aspects of this work. For example, the article Battle of Besançon is claimed by the candidate as a GA. This seems to have started as a translation of the equivalent bon article on the French wikipedia. The translation seems to have resulted in some garbling of the meaning and I'm not seeing any attribution as recommended at WP:CWW. Arguably, this is a violation of WP:PLAG, "Give credit where it is due." As this incident happened less than a year ago and the candidate specifically wants to work on copyright issues, it seems that he is not yet ready to have authority in such cases. Andrew D. (talk) 09:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

5. Oppose. My involvement with this editor involves reviewing one of his DYK’s on a fungus species, where I discovered made up and misattributed sources. Okay, this was three years ago, but just last month he dropped this same article into mainspace. I do not think he should be an administrator. Sasata (talk) 00:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

   Worth noting that the day after the page was recently moved to mainspace the candidate removed the material in question without being prompted, stating that they intended to do it earlier but forgot. Hut 8.5 06:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

   That is false, they removed the material after I flagged I offending text (check article history). Sasata (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

   Apologies, I missed that. But nevertheless it looks like all that happened is that he forgot something that happened three years earlier and corrected it swiftly once reminded. Hut 8.5 18:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

   I assume the "made up" source was Barla - where the correct title of his work is "La Flore mycologique illustrée : les champignons des Alpes-Maritimes" instead of the rather blatant typo of "Champagne"? Not the worst error I have found , alas. Makes it harder to verify, but not impossible, and of a nature that asserting that it was deliberately false in any way is a reach. It appears to have been a work reprinted in 1996, and mentions A. eliae on pages 84 and 87. As cited, it quite appears. It cites Quelet as naming it, and appears to have a plate showing it. I suggest those opposing on the grounds that the source was fictitious should reconsider that position. Collect (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

   Your assumption is incorrect. Please look at the DYK nom for the made up sources and other problems with the article. Sasata (talk) 22:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

   I used what you gave in your oppose here as an example - and the fact is that the name of the book was wrong - but the cite itself as mentioned here was real. Using your official objections: cannot be; this source is merely a picture of the species was an incorrect claim as to what is in Barla. And your biggie objection: It's not that the volva is covered with warts, but rather, the volva is present as warts' is pretty non-utile as a basis for claiming that the editor made up fake sources etc. Your "cn"s at the article included a claim by you that thee material by Barla "failed verification" while it did not fail verification, a request for source for what had been cited as "Jordan2001", and a claim that a Hungarian source "failed verification". All of which was more than 3 years ago. I grant you an abundance of good faith, but your insistence that an example from three years ago shows an editor making up fake sources is inaccurate, and possibly going to affect him in a substantive manner. I regard the fault in citing a book as minor, and that three years is 21 years in dog years. That noted, arguing with a person who demurs with your own stated position seems unlikely to persuade me of your correctness here. You had stated your objection, and I stated my view of your objection, and sought to get rid of the "this editor lies in his sources" connotation heretofore presented. Collect (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

   Did you miss the part where he cited a book that does not exist (i.e., a made-up source?) Do you regard this fault as minor? Sasata (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

6. Oppose - Eric is not my favorite editor, but he's spot on here, in my view. It's simple: mid-teens, even if "mature" (however one defines the word) should not be Wikipedia admins, and there seem to be other issues cropping up. [Note just prior to closing: those concerns have expanded, and given the various issues subsequently expressed by dozens of editors below, my oppose is now very strong.] Give it a year or two: I see no rush. Is Wikipedia so desperate for sysops that we need to give the extra buttons, including the endlessly controversial power to block, to people who our larger society (in the USA) deems ineligible to cast a vote? With all due respect to supporters, many of whom have gained my respect in the eight years I've been editing, this Rfa leaves me scratching my head. I do thank the editor for services to date, and wish them well. By the way, my last couple Rfa !votes were supports, and Kudpung's support statements leave me cold. Dredging up editors past !votes and ragging at them is dubious behavior at best and harassment at worst. Jusdafax 00:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

   (Not criticizing your comment, but...) In the US, the state and federal governments don't let kids drive till they're 16. This doesn't mean that children under 16 can't legally drive in other parts of the world. That said, WP:YOUNG is a pretty good point, though by no means is it representative of the candidate's competency to use admin tools. Epic Genius (talk) 01:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

   Blocking someone from contributing to a website is honestly pretty trivial compared to helping to determine who becomes the leader of the most powerful country on earth. Even if this were not the case, ageism exists in larger society because we cannot practically gauge the maturity of tens of millions of people. However, only two or three legitimate candidates a month show up at RFA. Surely it is not that difficult to look at all of the as individuals, instead of stereotypes. Unless you have diffs showing recent immaturity (less than a year old), I don't believe that your argument holds much weight. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

   +1 Epic Genius (talk) 01:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

   If the candidate's age was an actual problem then it should be trivial for those opposing to find examples of the sort of problems they are concerned about. If the user has behaved like an adult in their time here(something many people can't accomplish even in their 30s) then I don't see the issue. HighInBC 02:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

   Some of our current admins passed their RfAs when they were teenagers and some of them might still be teenagers! You still have a right to oppose based on whatever criteria you choose, I just want to note that there are admins in the past who passed their RfAs at a similar age. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

7. Oppose. The age is indeed a problem. We don't let people drive before they're 16 because children's brains aren't fully formed before then, and children under that age do not have the emotional or mental maturity to handle the complex responsibility of modern-day driving. I think the same applies to admins. Yes, back in the day before Wikipedia was the top-rated site, we may have inducted persons of this age, but back then we inducted most anybody who did not have a "criminal record", and Wikipedia was a much much much less complicated and complex site and environment and there was less pressure on admins and less opportunity to make poor far-reaching decisions. As is often stated, we don't hand out the tools piecemeal. No prejudice in re-applying in a few years, when there is more experience and more wide-ranging and challenging participation under the belt. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 06:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC) Addendum: I'm also very concerned about Yngvadottir's lengthy post. Focusing on volume and accolades – rather than accuracy, comprehension, difficult decision-making, and sorting out interpersonal disuputes – is not a good sign in an admin candidate, in my opinion. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

   I'd offer convincing points against your arguments, Softlav, but there is no guarantee that my brain is fully formed, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

   "We"? According to Driver's license in the United States, there are many states that allow people to obtain learner's licenses at 14 and 15 years of age. The US and Canada have some of the least age restrictive driving rules in the world. Most countries start at 18. Mkdw^talk 07:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

   haha, as if Wikipedia was some kind of giant unstoppable vehicle careering totally out of control... (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

   Andy Fraser was playing professionally with John Mayall aged 15 and founded Free the same age. King Edward VI had been and gone as king before he got to TAP's age. The worst thing you can do as an admin is delete the main page and replace with a picture of a cock; the worst thing you can do with a driving licence is kill someone. Not exactly in the same ballpark. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

   (hey, quit with the anti-chicken jokes, already). Martinevans123 (talk) 07:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

   As many people explained above, we draw an arbitrary line in the sand at 16 because we cannot test the maturity of everyone who applies for a driver's license. There are many people who could be trusted with a car at 14 and many who couldn't even be trusted with a bicycle at 24. But we can look at everyone's record here because only a few people apply. And what about those admins who are under 18, but don't disclose their age (most of them, I'd imagine)? Are they all evil rogue admins who should be indefinitely blocked and banned? Ritchie333 makes an excellent point above: how many people have been killed by admin actions? I'm guessing it's not many.

   But I suppose I am wasting my time here. The crats will give this elitist ageism all the weight it deserves, which is exactly zero. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

   I'm 17 and I don't have a driver's license. Nor am I likely to get one anytime soon. (But that's another story.) Epic Genius (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

   Once again, if the age is truly a problem then it should be trivial to find recent examples of lack of emotional or mental maturity. If such examples are not available(and I don't see anyone providing them) then perhaps your theory about young people automatically lacking emotional or mental maturity may need to be re-examined. HighInBC 15:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

   Actually, I wouldn't have known that TAP was 15 years old if it hadn't been pointed out earlier. He acts like an adult in most areas of WP, from what I have seen so far. Therefore, age is not a concern for this candidate. Epic Genius (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

8. Oppose I would not be comfortable handing administrative responsibilities to a 15 year old in the real world, and I am not comfortable doing it here. And Adoil Descended (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

   Question: Are there any other reasons that you are opposing, or is age the only reason? Epic Genius (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

   Question: In what way(s) do you consider Wikipedia to be like "the real world"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

   (@Martinevans123: That made me chuckle a bit. ;) Also, this is the real world nowadays, man... Epic Genius (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC))

   Yes, must be why we're all in such a jam. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

   Yes. And you know what? I bet 13-year-olds can drive cars now. Say what, again? Epic Genius (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

   Okay, you squatters, get yourselves arses out of my !vote. And Adoil Descended (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

9. Oppose, I don't believe that editors under the age of majority in their home country should be given access to the mop. If this is not true for the candidate, I will be more than happy to strike my !vote. Nakon 04:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
10. Oppose if the tools were unbundled I wouldnt see a problem, but they are not, and I do; we can't have it both ways. Editor is very young. Per observation of conduct, approach and per Softlavender. Note this oppose isnt reflexive, and have been very happy with the teneour of both admins and crats who happened to be in their teens. But as I saw this one coming, saw concerns; which are not really any reflection on the candidate, a valued member of the community, and who should take this as a not:now, perhalps later. Ceoil (talk) 05:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
11. Oppose It is unlike me to disagree with anything that Worm That Turned thinks, but it has long been my opinion that TAP isn't right for the mop. I'm not convinced by the general quality of his FA/GA content, the editing patterns fluctuate, and he still seems like a hat collector. I won't be able to endorse TAP for adminship, even though we need more active admins at the moment. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chew) 09:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
12. Oppose Too young.Brustopher (talk) 11:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

    So this is the only reason why you are opposing? sst✈ 14:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

    Pretty much. I agree with everything Eric Corbett wrote, and this is in no way meant as a reflection on Pen's skills as an editor which I haven't looked into. Additionally Wikipedia admins can have a lot of shit thrown their way, and I don't think its appropriate to expose someone to that sort of thing at such a young age. Brustopher (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

13. Oppose - per Yngvadottir's comments in the "Neutral" section. I think this eagerness to rush things through for "recognition" or "notches on the wiki-post" will decrease with experience, and another attempt in a couple of years would almost certainly have my support. Since this seems likely to pass anyway, I'll just urge more care and contemplation. Begoon ^talk 15:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

    @Begoon: Regarding "this eagerness to rush things through": I should point out that I approached him, unsolicited, to suggest that he become an admin - only to find out that other people were already set to nominate him. The last time he got a new user right was 2012. I really don't think the record shows any undue pushiness on TAP's part. --MelanieN (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

    Yeah, thanks. It wasn't so much a "hat collecting" thing I was concerned about, more the eagerness to rush things through for "recognition" or "notches on the wiki-post" which I mentioned. I'm currently more interested to see if there's a good answer to the "French sources" question mentioned below, though. Begoon ^talk

    The answers are "yes" and "yes" respectively. A source being offline does not mean it is impossible to find copies of it online (or indeed offline), for example this and this are two of those French sources. Dirtlawyer is correct, access to the original sources is also often necessary to ensure the accuracy of the translation. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

    So, "yes", you personally confirmed every source you placed in that article? (That's a question, by the way). If so, you have my apologies for that part of my opposition. I'm afraid the rest stands, though, Begoon ^talk 14:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

14. I was planning on sitting this one out, but Yngvadottir's comments below have prompted me to take a closer look at I am most proud of my content contributions, where I have brought 19 articles to Good Article status. On a dip sample of randomly-selected GAs listed on TAP's userpage, Agneta Matthes is plagiarised from de-wiki (de-wiki article at the time the en-wiki one was created), Marriage Charter of Empress Theophanu is plagiarised from fr-wiki (fr-wiki at the time of writing), Bombardment of Salé is copied (albeit with attribution this time) from the fr-wiki article as is Hôtel d'Alluye (fr-wiki at the time of writing); that's a hit-rate of 4 out of 4 of the ones I've dug into. Importing the best of the work of sister projects is a valuable job, provided the person doing the importing checks every source for themselves and doesn't assume that other wikis source to en-wiki's standards (AGFing, I'm assuming TAP did verify the material against the original Dutch, German, French and Arabic language sources before importing it), but TAPs reply to Q2 are clearly intended to give the impression that he wrote the 19 articles in question, rather than just cut-and-pasting other wikis' FAs into Google Translate. If someone can't be trusted on their own RFA, I'm not clear why they should be trusted with admin buttons, particularly given that the candidate has specifically said that their main focus of interest is going to be CCI. ‑ iridescent 15:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

    Plagiarism is a serious accusation. Possibly you missed these when doing your research? [2], [3] [4]. The third is poor attribution as it's missing the link, but is still attribution, and is now fixed. Google Translate doesn't produce coherent English by copy-pasting anything into it, and certainly not GA-standard English. I spent a huge amount of time puzzling over foreign language content and sources to deal with that. Also, I didn't say "I wrote" every single article, I said "I brought" them to GA status. Just as someone improving an article to GA status when it's already been partly written by others can legitimately say they "brought" it to GA status. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

    @Iridescent: (edit conflict) I saw your comments about the lack of attribution, and it gave me some pause, but I think you are mistaken. With Marriage Charter of Empress Theophanu, the candidate added an attribution statement with their second edit, four minutes after creating the article. With Agneta Matthes, someone else provided attribution on the talk page less than an hour after the article was moved to mainspace. Perhaps TAP would've added attribution; perhaps he wouldn't have, it's impossible to tell. Either way, it's likely just a one-off blip from three years ago.

    In any case, properly translating articles requires a bit more than just copypasting into Google Translate; some effort is required to ensure that it makes sense. Translated content is even counted as new content for, say, DYK purposes. Some work is generally also required to comply with the suggestions of GA reviewers. With these, I can quite understand if the candidate wants to claim them as his own on his userpage.

    Out of curiosity, I checked a few other GAs listed on TAP's userpage. Some others do appear to be translations from other wikis, but others really are fully original work (as best as I can tell), like Terry Bywater, Matt Byrne, and Jon Pollock. He has also written some featured lists with original content, such as List of Kings XI Punjab cricketers.

    I hope you will not consider this badgering, but I thought it seemed worth bringing to the table. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 16:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

    I seldom agree with Andrew D., but I would like to see an answer to his question about offline French sources on Hôtel d'Alluye. Begoon ^talk 16:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

    @Jakec, I'm not really seeing it. Of the 19 GAs he claims as his best work, by my count 11 are direct copy-paste translations from foreign-language wikis (possibly 12—I speak no Polish, and am unsure how closely Megitza copies the Polish-language original), while there are others to which TAP had no input (he claims Gangnam Style, for instance, although his entire contributions to that article were adding a reference and a line break and changing a space to non-breaking). ‑ iridescent 16:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

    Marriage Charter of Empress Theophanu was not plagiarized -- to choose but one example. The candidate's edit summary, complete with links to the foreign language wikis, more than meets the edit summary requirements of Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Translating from other language Wikimedia projects. To mischaracterize this as "plagiarism" is a baseless smear, from what I can see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

    Translation from another Wikipedia is no plagiarism but a valuable service to this one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

15. Oppose - as someone who passed RfA at age 13, and who has, imho, done a competent job, I really feel that a candidate’s age is irrelevant, especially compared to their demonstrated competence. What concerns me in this case, however, is competence. TAP’s grasp of policy and admin actions in general is just not where it needs to be yet. He has made huge improvements since his rocky start, and these are not to be discounted in any way, but I don’t think TAP has yet gotten to a truly nuanced understanding of policy and how different policies interact in complex situations, which is a necessary skill for admins. If he keeps improving on the trajectory he’s on, I would be happy to support once he has gotten there, however. Keilana (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
16. Oppose. After reading all the comments for and against, IMO the apparent age of this user is too young. Some have said that there is a minimum voting age because, unlike RfA, there is no individual assessment and that here we are able to individually assess. That would be persuasive if the RfA was a perfect infallible assessment. It's not. The better analogy is the minimum driving age. In the UK we have an individual assessment (the driving test) as well as a minimum age. That's because the test is not infallible. No one wants to see a 13 year old behind the wheel on our streets no matter how they perform in a test. DeCausa (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

    Your analogy regarding age and proficiency might be a good one if there was an age requirement at RfA. But you then cross the line from an analogy to a logical deduction. Often a fatal manoeuvre, I fear. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

    Martinevans123 there are no specific requirements at RfA at all. All opposers/supporters devise their own requirements anyway. This is mine. DeCausa (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

    Thanks for clarifying. You have every right to use whatever criteria you see fit. But I think you are mistaken if you think driving an automobile and being a wikipedia administrator are comparable. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

    Ugh. They are of course not comparable. That was not the point. The comparison was between a system (any system) with no individual assessment and a system (any system) with individual assessment. If you're going to comment on a post, at least put your brain in gear. DeCausa (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

    "Ugh"? Sounds like you're choking. Your comparison was not "between a system (any system) with no individual assessment and a system (any system) with individual assessment" it was between one with an age requirement and one without. But I still think your analogy is a very poor and misleading one. If you think RfA needs an age requirement, go ahead and lobby to change the rules. If you want to patronise my response as tiresome and missing the point, at least put your brain in gear. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC) Only my ignition still on now, so I can enjoy BBC Radio 4. Good luck out on the road.

    Again, that's not the comparison I was making and I don't think there's anything else I can say that will make you understand. DeCausa (talk) 06:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

    Understanding is not really something that can be forced on someone, is it. Let's hope others can understand what you mean and what comparison you were making. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

17. Oppose. The issues administrators are asked to involve themselves with, and the disputes they are called on to resolve, increasingly often involve matters that few of us would be genuinely comfortable to involve minors in. I do not think it prudent, either for such candidates or for the project as a whole, to afford minors full administrator status, however appropriate it may have been in the past. It would be better for us to consider ways to provide suitable young editors with a more limited bundle of tools and responsibilities. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
18. Oppose: Child (and child-like) editors, admins, and arbitrators are a large part of Wikipedia's problems, and we don't need to make that worse.—Kww(talk) 02:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

    Prove it. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

    Totally agree with Kww. A childish editor might easily get into an edit war with a well-respected fellow admin, and end up blocking him on a whim. After a lengthy drama-fest at Arbcom, he might get stripped of his admin tools, and become an embittered non-contributing snipe. 86.177.229.65 (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

    Indeed. That is entirely possible. So provide evidence that this candidate is childish. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

    Opposing adminship based on something that might happen based on nothing but the candidate's age and projection. RFA never ceases to amaze me. clpo13_(talk) 17:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

    I agree with Clpo13. (IPs are not allowed to !vote, but apparently they are allowed to post !vote-like comments.) Yes, a childish editor might do these things; so might any editor. But no one has come up with any examples of this editor acting childish. --MelanieN (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

    But that isn't reflective of the turbulence that is adolescence.[5] et al. The past, at that stage of life, is an especially weak predictor of the future. DeCausa (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

19. Oppose. Improvement is tremendous, yes. Is everyone sure TAP is past trophy collecting? I am not. Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
20. Oppose Despite assertions to the contrary, age is not just a number. My opposition, however, is mostly based on the appearance that i perceive of hat-collecting. If, as seems likely, the candidate passes this RfA, i urge him to take on board some of the comments and suggestions that have been made; among others, i recommend those of Ched, Peridon, Begoon, and Yngvadottir. Good luck, cheers, Lindsay^Hello 14:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
21. Oppose - My entire rationale for tools was based upon the expressed desire to work at Contributor Copyright Investigations and the inherent need for tools of those volunteers. I still feel this way. However, it does seem we have a candidate here who was faking sources in an article they launched, per Sasata above. THIS is the most damning diff, which I do urge people to check out as part of a study of the history of Amanita eliae. This happened less than a month ago. Sorry, that's a major, major party foul — the sort of thing that can land a person at CCI if the behavior is repeated. Please do continue to pitch in without tools at CCI , but don't pull that sort of stuff ever again. See you at RFA in two or three years. This nomination should not pass. Carrite (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
22. Oppose - The editor did a tremendous work in Wikipedia. But the main concern is the age, Any administrator must be at least 18 years old which is considered enough mature to handle such a demanding task. I know the RfA doesn't impose any age restrictions. It's important TAP must at least over 18 years old he/she may become more capable of handling the admin toolkits. My worst nightmare is this child may misuse the tools after the success of RfA. I believe he/she can return back to RfA process once he/she is 18 years old. Good Luck kid! ♔ MONARCH Talk to me 15:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

    This drivel is enough to make an editor leave the project. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:05, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

    Indeed. With a self-aggrandizing Userpage -- why, I'm an "Alpha Monarch - Custodian of Wikipedia!" that essentially proves my point about immaturity at any age. I know this comment of mine is a personal attack, I'm sorry. But I'm beginning to think we need a policy against Old Guys Who Think They Know It All. Sorry, that's it, I won't badger. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

23. Oppose: I am going to echo the concerns in the opposes of Carrite and Begoon. In addition, this candidate's user page seems "hat-collecting" to me: userboxes with nothing but accomplishments and then all their DYK's and GA's listed one by one. It was remarked in a rather recent AfD that:" DYK is a bauble-making process". Okay, so 173. Seems just all candy to me. I interpret this as immature. Each to his or her own interpretation. Sorry, maybe later. Fylbecatulous talk 16:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

    I don't like commenting on opposes in RfAs, but yours stuck out to me as unfair. Are you saying it's wrong to be proud of creating content? It's a popular opinion that admins need content contributions. So many of our most highly respected editors here have userpages celebrating their work. — Earwig ^talk 19:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

    This voter seems to think that it's immature to showcase your recognized content, but perfectly professional to keep your userpage littered with templates that say things like "Mew mew PURRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!! mew rrrr meow." – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

    @Juliancolton: +1. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

    I am not an administrator or a candidate to become one. If userboxes and language boxes are available they may be posted upon one's user pgae. Even if they are funny. My Wikipedia work displays my professionalism, not the decoration of my personal pages. Lastly, my age versus my user personna would most likely astound. All the best to my hecklers. Fylbecatulous talk 11:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

24. Oppose - per Eric & Jusdafax and most other age-opposed !votes, including the one directly above. Leaky Caldron 17:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
25. Oppose - I am also concerned about the age but I am more concerned about the concerns of iridescent. I appreciate the TAP's work on wikipedia but I am not sure that he can handle the mop correctly. Supdiop (T🔹C) 18:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
26. Oppose The breadth and depth of the concerns, from Eric, Carrite, iridescent and Keilana concern me and I don't believe it's in the project's best interests for TAP to be promoted at the present time. I'm certain that's going to change however and will welcome the chance to re-evaluate the candidate in future. Nick (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
27. Oppose I'm in agreement with the sentiments expressed by Eric, Carrite and others. Try again in a few years and I'll happily support. Aparslet (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
28. Oppose Mainly per Carrite. Candidate doesn't seem to have a firm grasp of policy at this time. Maybe in a year or so. Intothatdarkness 21:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
29. Oppose. Your nominator raves about the "stunning" "quality and diversity" of your "content contributions", highlighting Perijá tapaculo, for which the edit summary of your initial contribution on August 1, 2015 is the cryptic message "expand (fr)" – with no links. I believe, based on what what I'm reading elsewhere in this RfA, that a better edit summary might read "Copied and translated from fr:Mérulaxe de la Perijá." You say you're most proud of your content contributions, where you brought 19 articles, including this one, to Good Article status. I see that the French version of the article has a "Vous lisez un « bon article »." hatnote at the top. And your user page proudly features a list of your "good articles". I see that the major reference for that first contribution to Perijá tapaculo, Reserva Chamicero del Perijá, is easily translated to good quality English text with a click on the English language link on that page: Chamicero del Perijá Reserve. Sorry, and this is sad, but I'm afraid that you're a bit too clever for your own good. You may have seen some "content creators" vigorously opposing my recent RfA for what they perceived as my relative lack of work in that area, but I can assure you that if you were to find a version of Timeline of DOS operating systems on another wiki (so far there aren't any interwiki links), the version there would have been copied from the version I mostly created. Granted it might be fair to call this work "content contributions", but I find that characterization to be just too misleading. If you had more straight-up described the true nature of your contributions, which I believe most would characterize as gnomish work, then I could have supported you. Don't listen to the most extreme rants of those insisting that nobody is qualified for the admin bit without content creation experience; be proud of gnomish work which is very important to building a quality collaborative encyclopedia. Like WP:CCI, which I hope you continue to work in, as I believe that's severely understaffed. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
30. Weak Oppose WP:NOTYET I believe Keilana's argument seems the strongest to me. One more year would give TAP increased policy knowledge and it'll be over before you know it! MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 07:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
31. Oppose - The age issue troubles me, but that alone would not lead me to oppose. The issues raised by iridescent, Yngvadottir, Sasata, and Carrite have pulled me off the fence. I'm just not seeing that the candidate has sufficient understanding of copyrite problems. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
32. Oppose after some reflection. It's rare of me to disagree with Worm That Turned and many of those in the support column, however I am swayed by the opinion of Keilana. I would disagree with those who are opposing solely on the basis of the age of the candidate, as it's actions that count and as Keilana and others have pointed out, there have been many competent administrators that have been of a younger age. However, the concerns that have been pointed out, specifically the ones around lack of grasp of some policy and the issues raised about content creation by Iridescent give me enough pause to land me in this column. Steven Crossin (was Steven Zhang) 12:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
33. Oppose The issues raised by Yngvadottir, Iridescent and the very recent ongoing problems highlighted by Wbm1058 are valid and cause me concern as, to me, they demonstrate not only a lack of maturity but insufficient understanding of basic policy. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
34. Oppose per Jusdafax and Carrite. Even Keilana won't support this, which speaks volumes. Ageism is a totally valid criteria for a position requiring maturity but my opposition is based on the candidate's judgement. By the way, I think translating articles into en-wp and working them through GA is good work, I just wouldn't lead with it. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
35. Oppose as both a parent and someone who works in education, I don't believe a 15 year old needs any more distractions from what is in most countries their most important year of education. But I wouldn't oppose simply for that; I remain unconvinced that we should be allowing 15-year-olds the mop regardless of their perceived maturity, not to mention the e-safety issues that mean many admins are on the end of some pretty appalling abuse. Further, the issues highlighted by Carrite, Iridescent and Wbm1058 unfortunately tip me over from Neutral into this column. Black Kite (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
36. Oppose per Keilana and Black Kite. --John (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
37. Oppose Eric and Black Kite make good points about age and taken together with the issues raised by Jusdafax, iridescent, Carrite, and Wbm1058, lead me to the conclusion that it would be better to wait some more years.--I am One of Many (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

    How many more years is "some more"? And how would one decide what would be most appropriate? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

38. Oppose. My oppose has less to do with TAP's age or contributions but more in line largely focuses on what we expect Admins to handle. Admins are expected to handle very sensitive information and editors may approach admins with information that is of a personal nature or may have legal ramifications. Editors who are not familiar with TAP may approach them with such information and as far as been discussed, TAP would still be a minor in the majority if not all jurisdictions. Are we really supporting a minor having access to such information? No matter how mature an editor is, there is no way they would be in any mature enough to be exposed to some of the things that even we adults may balk at. Blackmane (talk) 02:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

    I try not to ask questions too often. But I can read multiple meanings from your wording and I would like a few clarifications.

    • Could you clarify the link (if any) between "less to do with TAP's age" and "are we really supporting a minor"?
    • You wrote that "no matter how mature an editor is, there is no way they would be in any mature [sic] enough to be exposed to some of the things that even we adults may balk at". I read this as you holding that the set of editors who are indeed mature enough is the empty set. Is this correct? If not, please provide a sample of editors who are indeed mature enough.
    • Could you clarify whether there is anything that TAP can do to address your concerns?

    Sorry for the trouble. →Σσς. (Sigma) 03:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

    Hmm, I can see how parts of my oppose seem ambiguous. Trying to quickly stamp out a reasoned oppose over a lunch break can do that. I've scratched part of my oppose to make it clearer. If you wish to know about some of the nastiness that Admins deal with to aid editors, I suggest you speak to Huldra. As for whether TAP can address my concerns, the answer is no. I just think there is a very murky legal ground with regards to the sort of things a minor should have access to on Wikipedia. Blackmane (talk) 11:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

    I think that's a very valid point about legal issues which might need wider community discussion. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

    I understand now, thanks. →Σσς. (Sigma) 15:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

39. Oppose. I don't care about the age of the candidate, I care about the reliability of his content work. I encountered him at DYK, where his 2012 contributions (together with the likes of LauraHale) often had problems. While that's old history, I notice that his recent DYKs are much the same. Some of them I included in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-09-09/Op-ed#my recent Signpost op-ed about DYK. Incorrect hooks that graced the mainpage from DYKS he recently (co-)wrote include Template:Did you know nominations/Province of Lodi (stating a fact about the city of Lodi as if it applied to the whole province), Template:Did you know nominations/Province of Isernia and Template:Did you know nominations/Province of Pescara (all these from September 2015). Still more recent is Template:Did you know nominations/Sainte Marie Coal Mine, an article he expanded from a French GA. this edit, a barely attributed translation of the French article. During translation, he makes some factual errors:

    • Source fr:Puits Sainte-Marie: "Dès la fermeture du puits, il est envisagé de démolir le chevalement, mais la population, très attachée à son patrimoine, s'y oppose, en particulier le docteur Marcel Maulini, créateur du musée éponyme qui forme un comité pour le rachat et l'aménagement du puits Sainte-Marie parvenant ainsi à sauver le chevalement en 1972"
    • Translation in the article: "Upon closure, it was planned that the headframe would be demolished, but due to the population’s attachment to their heritage, the headframe was saved in 1972 after efforts from the Dr. Marcel Maulini's Museum of Mining." This is wrong, as the Dr. first saved the shaft (1972), and then established the museum (1976): the museum could not chronologically have made any efforts in 1972... Thine Antique Pen, who I'm absolutely certain has never read any of the book sources on this article and simply trusts the French article, then goes on to "translate" the titles of his French sources, making up non-existing books in this manner, like "Survey of coal of Ronchamp". Basically, Thne Antique Pen is one of the typical examples of what is wrong with DYK. Not the kind of editor I would like to see as an admin. Fram (talk) 09:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

40. Oppose I have no objections to teenagers running for admin, but feel that they have a special burden here to show that we can trust them to deal with sensitive issues regarding real people. I appreciate and applaud the nominee's work here, but the age (fifteen is a bit young for this) and some issues brought up regarding the translations make me think the maturity level may not yet match the enthusiasm. I find particularly unconvincing various claims that well, we've promoted teenagers to admin before, so we can now. A fifteen year old pitched in the major leagues once. Doubt you'd see that in 2015.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

    Your level-headed and sober assessment is appreciated. There seems to be a much larger issue here than just this one candidate's age. One has to accept that policy can mature/ develop as the years go by. Given the strength of feeling expressed by many opposers here, I'm surprised no-one has yet started a community discussion, on the place of age limits at RfA in general. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

    That's because such a proposal would be impossible. There is generally no way for us to tell how old someone is, so there would be no way to apply or enforce such a limit. All a teenager would have to do, is keep quiet about the fact that they are a teenager. And IMO any proposal that people must "show your ID" or "submit proof of age" in order to run for RfA would be soundly rejected by the community as well as the WMF. --MelanieN (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

    I tend to agree. Which makes the situation here seem (to me) all the more ironic. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

41. Oppose – I'd been on the fence about this RFA for a long time, but Fram's oppose pushed me over the edge. Graham87 11:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
42. Oppose. I often see mindless objections to RFAs on the basis of insufficient content work (adminning can be of many different types, some of which do not require first-class content experience). And like Wehwalt, I have no in-principle problem with teenaged admins (some have been excellent). However, in this case, I must oppose along the lines of Fram's post just above—I have a lot of trust in her judgement. Tony (talk) 11:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
43. Oppose Seems best for all involved. Outside of wikipedia real life beckons; inside wikipedia complex issues take up valuable real life time; all in all I don't think this is a good idea...Modernist (talk) 12:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

    I don't see how this is specific to the candidate. (Nobody deserves to have their life taken away by Wikipedia administrative business). Could you elaborate? —Kusma (t·c) 12:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

    I think it is pretty obvious that what I am referring to as being a waste of time is the amount of time devoted here - especially for a young person - it's not that hard to understand...Modernist (talk) 11:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

44. Oppose - I think there are a lot of good and valid concerns expressed here, some conflicting, but each with merit. This included Eric, Keilana, Fram and others. In the end, I don't think there is sufficient experience and maturity to wield the tools at this time. I respect TAP as an editor and don't remember any negative experiences with him, but I fear he would be biting off more than he can chew, and as such, large mistakes are a real possibility. While age isn't the sole issue, maturity and experience are often a part of age and the combination is a valid reasons to oppose, imho, as the potential for mistakes is much greater. As for his intentions, I don't question them, just his ability to follow through on the expected role. I would say to give it a couple of years and try again. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
45. Oppose, per Fram. Sigh. I don't think I have a choice, but I'm feeling a lot of regret about this vote ... I'm not in the habit of browbeating 15-year-olds for things that might not be their fault. (He may have picked up these DYK habits from people who gave him very bad advice. Still ... a consistent theme at RFA is that an important job of admins is to protect content contributors, and some of TAP's ideas about what is and isn't okay in attribution, sourcing and translating will keep him from being able to fulfill that role, until those ideas change.) On the plus side ... this has pushed me over the edge to try to put together an RfC that will attempt to take a more gentle approach after failed RFAs. Anyone who's interested in trying to figure this out with me can watchlist my talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 14:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
46. Oppose - I originally wasn't really sure about this, but Fram's rationale is convincing. Blackmane makes also relevant point about underage admins.--Staberinde (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
47. Oppose I don't care about the candidate's age. We have plently of admins whose age we don't know, I'm sure, so we must judge everyone by their merits. Speaking of which, the rationales of Keilana and Fram are persuasive. BethNaught (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
48. Oppose. I took a look at some of the candidate's work, and before I had a chance to post, Iridescent mentioned two of the articles I'd spent some time digging into (and my dip rate was similar). As I was posting a question about the process the candidate follows to build these articles, from beginning to end, I was edit conflicted with question 12, which was virtually identical to what I'd written. The candidate's answer doesn't go far enough to explain to my satisfaction how the translations are done, how these rather obscure articles are chosen, whether or not the sourcing in the foreign language texts has been checked. I suppose it's okay to translate and submit to review any article and then claim as one's own, but there's an element of corner cutting that leaves me uneasy. Beyond that, opposing per Sasata, Keilana, Wbm1058, Fram (who dug deeply into some of the material and whose work at DYK I trust), and Wehwalt and Dennis Brown, who both articulated better than I can. Victoria (tk) 19:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
49. Oppose per the reasons expressed by Carrite and Fram. I hope the candidate will come back in another year after not making these kinds of edits for a while (several of the problem edits referenced by Fram came from August and September 2015). - tucoxn\^talk 20:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

    If he comes back after just one year, he will again be shouted down by the "Too young! Too young!" opposers. The lesson to be learned here is clear: if you are a teenager, keep it a secret. --MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

50. Oppose per Fram and similar comments. Age not the issue. BMK (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
51. Oppose' per Carrite plus I also think a teenager shouldn't have the tools....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
52. Oppose Sorry. I moved here from support. Too many issues have been identified in the last couple of days, and I think it's best to err on the side of extreme caution at RfA. Try again in a year or two. RO^(talk) 23:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
53. Oppose There is a lot of substance in many of the oppose !votes, which I have considered carefully. I want to raise another issue: I took a close look at Megitza, the second Good article listed on the candidate's user page, which is about a musician and vocalist. I found an article with a lot of problems. Much of the content consists of mentioning various concert appearances in and around Chicago from 2008 to 2012. The content includes one quotation describing a festival rather than her performance there. The article includes irrelevant factoids like the names of two Chicago agencies that sponsored one such event. In the lead, four of her songs are described as being "notable" without any evidence being provided to support that claim. And so on. The article does not seem to meet GA standards to me. The reviewer, Dr. Blofeld, commented that "This article is still by general GA standards a weak entry . . ." but still promoted it. As part of a Peer review a few weeks later, Blofeld commented, "It was lucky to scrape GA". Since the candidate wishes to work with Contributor copyright investigations, I have a real concern with a seven sentence block quote taken from a review of one of the musician's performances, which left out only a few words from the actual published seven sentence review. According to the Copyrighted material and fair use section of WP:QUOTE, "The copied material should not comprise a substantial portion of the work being quoted . . ." Although this is an essay, it is referred to in guidelines and I believe reflects best practice regarding use of non-free content. Admittedly, the article was written back in 2012 and was a collaboration with Blofeld, who seems to have added that lengthy quote himself during the GA review. TAP did not comment one way or another. Things could have been cleaned up in the past three plus years but haven't been. There's an additional concern. We have a GA about a 30 year old musician of borderline notability, and the article has not been updated by its original author since July, 2012. Reading the article, one might think that her career came to an abrupt end in 2012 although it is clear from her own website that she has been active since then. Although not required, I think that diligent and active editors should pay attention to and maintain the articles they claim credit for, especially BLPs of currently active people. And that's especially true of editors who want to be administrators, in my view, Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

    I strongly disagree with your view about maintaining articles. I think your view is exactly opposed to the spirit of WP:OWN and WP:SOFIXIT, and clearly would be unmanageable for those users who create a large chunk of our articles, such as Dr. Blofeld, Carlossuarez46 or Ser Amantio di Nicolao. You may also want to be aware that the article creation privilege was removed from non-autoconfirmed accounts and IPs, so the rest of us now have to make sure all encyclopaedic articles are created at least at stub level so that IPs and non-autoconfirmed users can then contribute to them. Samsara 09:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

    I did a few years back but I don't create a large chunk of our articles anymore, in fact I urge us to focus on what really gets the traffic and are important. There is certainly a problem when writing BLPs in that they have to be updated and naturally if we create a lot of articles we can't be expected to keep updating them. I remember Megitza. I did look into it and the sourcing available for her is very poor anyway, so I'd never expect a great article on her, that doe shave to be taken into account. It's one of the weaker ones I've passed anyway. At the time it seemed like the best possible article which could be written on her but with current standards I agree it should be delisted, sorry TAP. Lengthy quotes attributed in boxes are fine where they help the article, I use them all the time in featured articles. Perhaps given the short length of the article it's too weighty though. The problem as you say is that she's borderline notable. I don't know wwhat sources have been produced since 2012 but it's difficult to written anything decent on her. The factoids are just padding aren't they? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

54. Oppose - the candidate clearly has some strong positives, and I am confident that they will be given the bit at some future time, but the reasoned criticism of aspects of their work, above, means that I am opposed to their promotion at this time. Just Chilling (talk) 03:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
55. Oppose After my own review of the edits raised, above, my concerns lie along the same lines as Keiliana, Iridescent, Carrite, Fram, Victoria, Dennis, Dank, and Just Chilling so I won't belabor them. Best of wishes for the future, if you make it and if this time you don't make it, others have not made it their first time. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

    Oppose - I had originally supported but Softlavender made a convincing case below, also at issue the WP:CWW bit. I repeat this is, and should not be about age but about conduct. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Moved to neutral

56. (Moved from neutral) Oppose per the proof of interwiki WP:CWW violations presented above. Steel1943 (talk) 13:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
57. I would not trust this user to police Wikipedia yet, per conduct discussed above. Age is not a concern to me, but I encourage our crats to not discount oppose rationales simply because they disagree with them. Opposes are sometimes unnecessarily long and mean-sounding because it is known crats will sometimes discount rationales they personally don't like consider weak. Townlake (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
58. Not sure what else I can add, other than per Keilana. Further, I'm concerned at the very loose (and in my opinion quite inadequate) attribution when using material from sister projects. Courcelles (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Neutral

(Moved to oppose) Sitting here until my questions are answered. However, I would like to state to the current opposers that the age of a candidate isn't a valid reason to oppose. I honestly think that the opposers above have the term "age" confused with "competence"; they are not one in the same, especially since competence and age are not directly related in the least when it comes to editing Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

My questions were answered some time ago, but I'm staying here due to how the oppose section is starting to bring up some concerns. Steel1943 (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

1. For now, just to register my objection to candidates being judged on their physical age. Samsara 00:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

   Neutral - I will remain here until all questions are answered. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC) Moved to support. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

2. I don't believe age should matter if someone has proven they are qualified. Especially when they didn't offer their age as part of their RfA. It is not clear why a young qualified person should receive less support than an older equally qualified person. The reason countries have a minimum age for voting is simply because it would take too many resources to judge every person individually. Certainly not because every minor is unfit to vote and every 18-plusser is fit to. In reality there are plenty of minors who would be great voters, and plenty of people over 18 who aren't. Here, however, we can judge people individually. And it is certainly not our job to judge what someone should spend their time on. Gap9551 (talk) 02:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

   Agree with your observations about national electorate, but we're not considering eligibility for "voting" here, are we. We're considering use of a toolbox of sanctions. In some editors' eyes the issue appears to be the possibility, in very simple terms, of "adults being blocked by children". I note that the editor who initially raised the age question has done so (apparently) with the academic interests of the candidate at heart. All the edits I've noticed by Thine Antique Pen have looked fine, and looks to me like a very good candidate. But tempted to oppose merely to spare this good editor from the unpleasant things that happen to many when they become admins. Still pondering. But now happily pushed over the brink by geriatric group-think. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

3. Neutral leaning oppose. I haven't seen much of Thine Antique Pen recently, but I note one of the opposes mentions his moving to mainspace an article he worked on in 2012 that contained misused sources. In mid-2012, after his unblock and name change, I worked on a number of articles he wrote and claimed credit for that had very serious flaws. Two examples: This (the source of one of the bad examples of Google-translatese on my user page) was ThineAntiquePen's version of what is now Altes Stadthaus, Berlin before I and others put in considerable effort retranslating and fixing sourcing; this included Thine Antique Pen briefly refusing to recognize that the Nazis came to power, with the edit summary "no thanks". He then put it up for GA and got it passed (with further help from the GA reviewer). At Mont Sainte-Victoire and the Viaduct of the Arc River Valley, which he had nominated for DYK, I found unsupported statements, a significant contradiction, and possible plagiarism: see the hidden notes in my edit. I was not sure one reference referred to this specific painting. Here's the DYK nomination: TAP simply withdrew it. Luckily I see someone else has since worked on the article; I never got back to it although I checked out a dozen books from the library to do so. I received a very bad impression from these and other articles at this period, of someone working simply for recognition, producing very poor work which then had to be fixed by others. Looking at his article creations this year, I am unable to judge the species articles, so I looked at some of the stubs on places in Panama that he appears to have created over a couple of days this summer. At La Carrillo and Los Algarrobos, Veraguas, the statement about the settlement's being created because of a change in laws is unsourced and does not appear in es.wikipedia, so I wonder where this statement comes from. Also, all those I checked lacked coordinates; I added coordinates from es. to La Carrillo before discovering this. Mass creation of stubs on settlements without coordinates and with an unsupported legal statement does not impress me. Going back to January 2015, I note that Hôtel d'Alluye passed GA after considerable work by a member of the Guild of Copyeditors. The translation from French was not nearly as bad as the translations from German that he was creating and submitting to DYK 3 years ago, so I don't have enough reason to oppose, but nor am I persuaded by his recent work that he has moved far enough from his original focus on volume and on accolades. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

   The statement you mention about La Carrillo and Los Algarrobos, Veraguas is in fact referenced at Footnote 2 (in Spanish) of the reference given in the article. It is likely to be the administrative division, rather than the settlement itself, which was created by that law: Noyster (talk), 00:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

   Yngvadottir is too kind. Having become suspicious of the GA Battle of Besançon, I've been looking at the similar Hôtel d'Alluye, which she mentions. Notice that all the sources for this article are in French and are offline. Does the candidate have any understanding of French? Have he actually had sight of any of these sources in any way? For example, consider the first source, Blois, la ville en ses quartiers. This seems to be the work of local enthusiasts: Les Amis du Vieux Blois. One of the authors is Christian Nicolas but the English version produced by the candidate renders this as Christian Nicols throughout. Apart from the failure to correctly attribute the authors of the original French GA, how are reviewers of the English version supposed to catch such transcription errors when it's not made clear that the article is a translation? If the candidate has a long history of such vainglorious misrepresentation, then it seems bizarre that they are being considered as an admin rather than being subject to sanctions. Andrew D. (talk) 14:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

4. Neutral leaning WP:NOTYET I actually consider this person's age to be a net positive given the rough start was three years ago. Once an adult person has done something at all shifty I can never trust them again; certainly three years after the most recent bad behavior of, say, a 40-year-old would not convince me they had changed. But someone who three years ago was a 12-year-old who needed blocking but who now, at 15, agrees the block was necessary and has not in the intervening years done anything untrustworthy? I'd argue that's evidence of maturity taking place. I'm not sure it's strong enough evidence yet for me, though. I'd like to see a little more time. valereee (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC) Edit to add: gah! What did I do to eff up the numbering? valereee (talk) 13:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

   You didn't do anything, it was the indented comment above. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

   Valereee, see WP:NOTNOTNOW. sst✈ 16:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

   Or, WP:NOTQUITEYET, though I actually don't think the latter applies in the case – this is about age, not time on the project. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

5. Neutral I'm being ageist. I am. I'm not going to lie about it. It is unfair, that's why I'm !voting neutral. I just know how behaviourally things can change during these "coming of age" years, abruptly, from personal experience. Everyone is different, but I know I wouldn't have given me a mop when I was 15, so naturally I'm hesitant to do the same for any other minor. I hope the candidate is different and will prove me wrong, and I'm sorry I can't offer my full support — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

   Moving to support. — Earwig ^talk 07:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Flip-flopping on this one. No concerns about age (like Keilana, I was 13 when my RfA passed; if that was a mistake, I'd love to hear you tell me why). Likewise, no concerns about general dedication to the project, and he has clearly improved a great deal as a contributor in the past few years. Still, I am concerned by Sasata's oppose, and to a lesser extent, Yngvadottir and iridescent. I think this needs a clearer review or explanation before I could support. — Earwig ^talk 00:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

6. Neutral (moved from support) – Thought things over a bit more and I don't feel comfortable enough on either side. I was contemplating re-instating my support simply to counter the garbage oppose votes that question TAP's maturity—as a byproduct of their age—which would be a somewhat ironic move on my part. I have no doubt at all that TAP is mature enough to be trusted with the mop. Countless minors have been given the bits time and time again, I know a few myself and respect them far more than some of the "adult" admins. Anyone who considers a number above and/or instead of quantifiable actions (aka maturity) should not be voting. It makes this (arguably) broken process more broken. I commend MusikAnimal for acknowledging their personal bias toward age and voting neutral accordingly. All this being said, I do acknowledge some of the concerns over inter-wiki plagiarism, source mis-attribution, and sub-par understanding of certain policies brought up by Sasata, Yngvadottir, and Iridescent. TAP has shown their ability to quickly mature so I feel comfortable in not jumping to oppose, as they will likely improve upon these criticisms, but at the same time I cannot outright support someone with such notable issues. Given time, I firmly believe TAP will make a fine admin in the future. If they do pass this RfA, I strongly urge restraint in using the tools and suggest the candidate seek out a mentor to properly learn the ropes. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
7. Neutral (sadly) To be honest, I really did want to support this. _{see WP:ILIKEIT as it relates to articles.} I have no objection (per se} to TAP getting a couple extra buttons, and I honestly doubt that he would break anything - or push any limits that would trigger an RFAR. Still: Yngvadottir, Sasata, Carrite, Wbm, and others bring salient points to the table. As to Iridescent's point(s), _{(and facts are not a "baseless smear" by the way)}, those could easily be addressed with a bit more caution, clarity and elaboration in your gnome-ish work. You don't have to resort to full-on "Bradspeak", but a bit more specificity might be a good thing. To be perfectly blunt TAP: Had you responded to Iridescent with a "good point, I'll be more careful in the future", I may not be here now. But the Also, I didn't say "I wrote" every single article, I said "I brought" them to GA status. really wasn't the approach I prefer to see taken by a mature admin., and it left a bit of a sour taste in my mouth. As to the "age" issue, this website is not going to run a stop-sign and cause any meyhem. Also, while I fully appreciate the concerns of others, I personally, am not here to be a "parental unit". On a side note: apologies to Keilina and Earwig for my failure to include them in my original list of excellent young admins/editors. — Ched :  ?  14:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

   Then explain what is "factual" about calling this edit "plagiarism" -- and how does it not meet the attribution requirements outlined Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Translating from other language Wikimedia projects? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

   User:Ched has chosen not reply here and has instead left me a message on my talk page, apparently with the bizarre notion that that this is how Rfa discussions are supposed to go. Anyway, the response was "fixing something after the fact ≠ not making the original mistake of forgetting to include the attribution in the original post." Now, first of all, "After the fact," I remind everyone, was the second edit summary in the article, all of four minutes after his initial edit. Moreover, our policy says that attribution is "ideally in its first edit" (italics added). We're supposed to use a modicum of common sense in interpreting guidelines. You don't honestly expect the rest of us to believe that placing the attribution in the second edit summary rather than the first constitutes "plagiarism," do you? That that is a fair and accurate description of what this was, and is fair treatment of the candidate? Oh and if you're going to respond, please do so here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

8. Neutral - Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
9. Moral support. TAP: you're a great editor here, and your efforts are appreciated - keep up the good work!:) — sparklism ^hey! 13:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
10. Neutral (moved from support) - sorry but while I disagreed with the initial oppose votes, content and attention to detail based concerns coming later on worry me that you might make too many mistakes at the moment. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
11. Neutral I know im flip flopping more than a pancake here, but I just have too much of an open mind to oppose, but am not convinced enough to support. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

General comments

• @Thine Antique Pen: Please take a look at Template:Copied and Template:Translated page. I have used the former, but not the latter template, as I have never had occasion to import the text of an article from another foreign language version of Wikipedia. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• I have used the latter template on several occasions (e.g. Talk:Erfurt Stadtbahn). And I did use Google Translate for that and other articles, but GT is at best a starting point for writing the translated article content, as the GT text requires a lot of editing (and sometimes some pure guesswork as to what was meant in the original untranslated text!). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed, IJ. My point about Google Translate is that it's nothing like a well-written final product -- certainly a GT translation should not pass a GA review. If the candidate created a well-written translation of a French Wikipedia article, sufficient to satisfy the GA standards, he deserves most of the credit. That said, confirmation of foreign language references included in the original is a separate matter. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

---

• @All discussion participants: That said, I am a competent reader and writer of intermediate French and Spanish, and I can say unequivocally that I would never rely on Google Translate for an accurate translation -- either literal or idiomatic -- of an article or reference written in either of those languages. At best, Google Translate provides a rough and usually very literal translation. The program has difficulty translating French and Spanish texts into grammatically and idiomatically correct English, and the more complex the idiom and syntax of the original, the more mangled the English translation tends to be. Someone taking a foreign Wikipedia article and re-writing it in proper English can take a great deal of credit for a GA-quality finished product. Confirmation of foreign language inline references is a completely separate issue, however, and the failure to confirm the content of foreign language references could have a significant impact on the accuracy of the English translation. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

---

• Hat collecting??? Three or four opposes have cited "hat collecting" or "trophy collecting" as their reason for opposing. I don't understand what they are basing that on - unless they are simply recycling the old issue from 3 1/2 years ago. As I pointed out above, there is no evidence of "hat collecting" in his activities of the past three years. He seems to have completely abandoned his search for advanced permissions after being reprimanded for it then. He has spent the last three years quietly creating articles and helping maintain Wikipedia. The last time he requested and got an additional user right was 2012. --MelanieN (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

  Melanie, we get that you're excited about the term (even with one "?"). I answered you "above" where you "pointed it out". It might help you not to concentrate so much on the term, and instead consider the shared sentiment. I, for instance, am certain TAP can be a good admin in a couple of years. There are, however, enough matters in this RFA to say to me that is not right now. I'm currently in the minority, and that's ok too. Rgds. Begoon ^talk 14:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

  I agree with Begoon, in everything above. MelanieN, you may not see evidence; i do, so your statement that there is none is incorrect. True, the overt seeking of advanced permissions seemed to stop; but collecting hats, in my mind, refers to others of the candidate's activities ~ the listing of ten thousand articles started, 170+ DYKs, and so on on the user page is evidence of, if you don't want to call it hat collecting, seeking external affirmation and validation. YMMV, but that's how i see it; cheers, Lindsay^Hello 17:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

  My own user page shows lists of articles I have created, articles I have rescued, DYKs, and even a userbox boasting that I was editor of the week. Sure looks like hat collecting - excuse me, "seeking external affirmation and validation". I guess I shouldn't have been given tools. Neither should most of the recently promoted admins. Come on, folks. It's normal for people to list their achievements on their user page. --MelanieN (talk) 21:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

  The mind boggles. Over half of the editors in the "oppose" section have article creations, recognized content, and/or barnstars displayed on their userpages. In fact, Fylbecatulous's objection to "accomplishments and then all their DYK's and GA's listed one by one" could just as easily be a description of the first opposer's userpage. I've participated in a lot of RfAs, and I've never heard anybody cite cataloged accomplishments as evidence of hat-collecting before today. There appear to be several valid issues with this candidacy—why grasp at straws? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

  Sorry, didn't mean to boggle any minds. MelanieN, i think i !voted for you at RfA, which would have been because i believed you had a record indicating you'd be an asset in the position; your userpage lists or userboxes did not reinforce evidence to the contrary. In this case, that is not the case. And, Juliancolton, i fear i must have expressed myself poorly; it is not the lists per se i object to, but they are, to me, evidence of something we don't need in an admin. But we all have our own methods of judging and making our minds up; apparently ours vary sufficiently that we come down on different sides here, this week; cheers, Lindsay^Hello 17:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Perhaps, it would be wise to consider adding a minimum age requirement for future applicants. I think this discussion may be venturing into dangerous safeguarding issues with regards to dealing with minors and may end up reflecting very badly on the project. As a mother of 4 children, I would not be comfortable with having my under-age child communicating with total strangers on the Internet. I would not be happy to have my child publicly ridiculed and bullied by a group of people who are in general far older and should know better than to be openly unkind and publicly hostile to anyone. I would not be happy to expose my child to the dangers of sexual and emotional predators that may be lurking among us. Wikipedia is basically, a very large interactive chat-room with frequent bouts of open hostility among its participants. All I'm saying, is this could all go terribly wrong and regardless of your personal opinion on whether or not this applicant should move forward now or in a few years time, in this particular discussion, it would be wise to move forward with care and a bit of tact. Rhondamerrick (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion moved to the talk page. Esquivalience ^t 00:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

---

• Comment I really feel that the age only comments are weak and should be discredited as we have had admins before promoted as teenagers so what would be the difference? If this is closed as promoted or not I suggest a crat discussion on what to do going forward when it comes to teenagers wanting the job as admin. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Personally, I'm disappointed in a fair number of editors in the oppose section. Wikipedia is a meritocracy - we do should not focus on age, gender, race or anything else outside of Wikipedia - unless it can be shown to affect actions within wikipedia. I agree most young editors are not suitable for adminship, due to immaturity, but no immaturity has been shown here. Look, for example, at how TAP has handled 50 odd opposes, often with unfounded attacks to his hard work or his personality. I've seen editors quit over 1 personal comment, yet he's only responded to a few and kept it civil. He's far more mature than so many editors I've seen. And as for Hat Collecting, that is only an issue if the individual holds the "hat" for prestige only. If they're doing the work that is involved with it, I cannot see why we're complaining.
I disagree with a large number of others, especially on quality of work and attribution and so on, but disagreement is no biggie, I can accept I don't agree with everyone, at least they're coming up with evidence based opposes. But over a 1/4 of opposes have no basis in evidence, they're hypothetical or against consensus. When you realise that, I hope that the bureaucrats will actually look at the consensus as a group. Worm^TT(talk) 09:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I really think that bureaucrats should abstain from nominating candidates. Too much COI imo. Samsara 10:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd rather give up the 'crat bit than abstain from nominating candidates. Worm^TT(talk) 10:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Then I herewith challenge you to do so. Samsara 10:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Start a conversation WT:RfA or somewhere else. Show me that a portion of the community agrees with you, that 'crats should not nominate candidates, and I will do so. Worm^TT(talk) 10:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

So you didn't actually mean it? That was my point. I also have significant doubts about the purpose of your post above just prior to the closing of this RfA you initiated. With any luck, this will be considered "discretionary range". And then perhaps your comment will be the first thing your fellow 'crats will read, setting the stage for their verdict. Samsara 10:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I've responded on your page regarding "meaning it". With regards to the discussion, I think my "fellow 'crats" can tell that I have an interest here and make up their own minds. Worm^TT(talk) 10:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you here that this isn't about age, but the opposing view does have some valid points that go past this such as WP:CWW. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

What I've seen is TAP giving insufficient attribution, but not zero attribution. Knowing TAP as I do, I'm certain he'd be willing to go back and correct anything up to right level. Worm^TT(talk) 13:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

A 'crat is just another Wikipedian with some extra buttons and responsibilities. WTT won't close or in any way improperly influence discussion of potential administrators. He abides by guidelines about being involved. Keep finding and nominating good ones, please. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 16:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Placing a cratchatty summary near the time of closing is more than unfortunate if one were actually serious about not influencing the decision. Samsara 19:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

---

• Comment: I have posted some concerns about the candidate on the Talk page. I could have posted here but it got long. I haven't been looking in on this RfA since my !vote 6 days ago, but when I did today it caused me to look at the candidate's contributions myself. (My findings/comments were too long to add to my !vote.) Softlavender (talk) 10:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC). Never mind, the Talk page banner says to keep discussions on the RfA page if they are of interest to other voters, so I posted them below. Softlavender (talk)

Concerns: 12 Google-Translated GAs (out of 18), lack of Talk-page attribution; etc.

I took a look through TAP's GAs, and it's clear that at least 12 out of the 18 are Google Translations (managed by TAP) of the original article on a foreign Wikipedia (most of them FAs or GAs on their native sites). I believe that that information should have been given to us by the candidate when he proclaimed what he was most proud of on WP. I also question the almost automatic assumption that the overwhelming number of unlinked (unviewable) references in these articles corroborate the information they are purported to (and even that the linked foreign-language citations do so). I'd also like to ask the candidate if he speaks and reads French, German, Polish, Spanish, and Dutch, and if not, whether he thinks it advisable for a non-speaker to rely on Google Translate for this work and its accuracy, particularly if and when they are given GA status afterwards. I would also like to ask the candidate why attribution of the source has not been given on the Talk page on most of them. This is generally customary: "Where applicable, the template {{Translated page}} can also be added to the talk page to supplement copyright attribution" [6], and even moreso when the so-called "translator" is not a native speaker and is using machine translation. The reader must not be forced to dig though a lengthy edit history to be informed of this -- most readers have zero reason to look at an edit history. I personally find this a major oversight, especially in someone who wants the mop for copyvio work. I find all of the above findings extremely disturbing.

I am also concerned by the fact that he added himself to GA-Reviewer Mentors on May 20, 2012, after editing WP for less than 6 months, and immediately after getting his first two GA offerings approved -- both were Google Translates from other wikis, neither attributed as such, and one was de-listed within three weeks.

I am also disturbed by the more than 10,000 one- to three-sentence stubs the candidate has created – mostly obscure non-notable species and tiny villages in non-English-speaking countries. All of my concerns here (and this is just a preliminary look through the candidate's contributions) were too lengthy to create a "Question for the candidate" or to tack onto my !vote of many days ago, but I did want to raise them somewhere because to me they raise concerns about the candidate beyond even this RfA. Softlavender (talk) 10:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC); edited 15:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Softlavender: perhaps the [last two paragraphs of the] candidate's answer to question 12 addresses your question about "if he speaks and reads French, German, Polish, and Spanish..." The same answer also says that TAP will include "attribution both on the talk page and in the article history" for any future translations, although I would add that WP:CWW states that "At minimum, [attribution] means a link to the source page in an edit summary at the destination page", and TAP has met, albeit not exceeded, this minimum standard. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 15:15, 14 October 2015 (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.