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

Guoguo12[edit]

Final (30/8/2); ended 18:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC) - Withdrawn by the candidate. 28bytes (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Guoguo12 (talk · contribs) (self-nomination) – Hello, I'm back. Having now actively contributed for over a year and with over 11,000 edits combined, I think I can be trusted with the mop. Since my last RfA, I've racked up two more DYK credits, and I've also brought two articles to GA status: Battle of Atlanta, which I started working on before my last RfA even concluded, and Southeast Asia Treaty Organization. I am currently working collaboratively on a GA at Hollywood Walk of Fame. In February, I was elected Assistant Coordinator of WikiProject Wikify, and have since become project-wide Executive Coordinator. Through the project, I have furthered my skills in communication, compromise, proposing new ideas, and helping users in need. In addition to content improvement and WikiProject involvement, I spend a decent amount of time doing anti-vandal work, new page patrolling, and participating in community discussions. Guoguo12 (Talk)  15:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I withdraw my nomination. Thank you. Guoguo12 (Talk)  18:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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 intend to continue my anti-vandalism work at WP:AIV while also helping out with normal recent changes patrolling (using Huggle). I also intend to work with candidates for speedy deletion, especially time-sensitive ones such as G10 attack pages.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am very satisfied with my work on Southeast Asia Treaty Organization, which I significantly improved by adding content, improving sources, and restructuring layout. When I first became interested in Wikipedia, I began to realize that there was a whole world operating behind the scenes of the encyclopedia. I think that in these last few months, I've come full circle by rediscovering the content side of Wikipedia—the final product that all of the community processes, from ArbCom to AIV, are really there to protect, maintain, and improve.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have been in conflicts, though rarely about content. When I find myself at odds with another user, I try to resolve issues through careful discussion and resolution (as I intend do so in the future). Dispute resolution requires understanding—you have to want to understand what the other party's point of view is ("to climb into someone’s skin and walk around in it", as Atticus Finch put it). Recently, I've spent a little time each day observing WQA (as well as admin noticeboards like WP:AN and WP:ANI) and occasionally I get a chance to resolve a dispute or point a user in the right direction.
Additional question from —GFOLEY FOUR—
4. What is your view on ignoring all rules?
A: Good question. In my opinion, its purpose is to give editors the freedom to ignore the bureaucratic limitations imposed by the exact wording of policies when doing so is perceived to be beneficial to the encyclopedia. WP:SNOW is a good example of an application of IAR, and sums the idea up nicely: "Use common sense and don't follow process for the sake of it".
Additional question from Wifione ....... Leave a message
5. List out the mistakes that exist currently in our web notability guideline page. After reviewing the page primarily from your individual and personal perspective - and including any other perspectives that you may wish to; for example, benefit to Wikipedia et al - kindly list out the mistakes you can find out in the specific page at (a) a conceptual level (b) a copy editing level. Please feel free to leave a note on my talk page in case you wish any clarifications.
A: In my opinion, WP:WEB does not make any large conceptual mistakes. However, I think there is one missing criterion. The section "No inherent notability" describes how, when judging notability, it is important to consider whether or not the content had "any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." This should have its own criterion in the "Criteria" section, just as it does at WP:BIO. As for the second part of the question, here's how I would copyedit have copyedited the article, although I think editors will find this more detailed list of changes much easier to read.
Would you say that a topic that can meet one of the three criteria but cannot sufficiently meet WP:GNG should have a standalone article? NW (Talk) 13:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: I would say that such a situation would be highly unlikely or impossible, given that the first criterion practically is WP:GNG. Both emphasize the need for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Yes, but what if the topic only met the second criteria? WP:WEB only requires that one be met. NW (Talk) 13:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: Ah, I see what you mean now. First of all, if the article meets either the second or third criterion, then it is likely that it will have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". However, if it happens not to meet the GNG, the article is likely to deleted or merged because the GNG generally tends to take precedence (since it is most directly supported by the fundamental principles of Wikipedia—notability, verifiability, et cetera). However—and this is very important—the exact outcome should be derived from community discussion and should reflect general consensus, as determined in an AfD discussion.
Additional question from jorgenev
6. What is one Wikipedia or User essay that you think should have more exposure than it currently does and why? A brief answer is fine.
A: WP:RECENTISM. This interesting page, complete with examples from the recent past, details one of the flaws in Wikipedia—because of its open and dynamic nature, its coverage of modern topics is far more detailed than it may ever need to be. Wikipedia has survived and thrived for ten years. Some ask, "Will Wikipedia be around in a hundred years?" Perhaps the question we should be asking is, "What will Wikipedia look like in a hundred years?"
Additional question from The Utahraptor
7. One of the main problems that was brought up in your first RfA was a lack of content creation. Have you done any content creation since your last RfA? If so, can you provide links to the pages you created?
A: Since then I have created Edward R. Hanford, Charles Asten, and Jamar Butler. To be entirely accurate, I created the first of the three while my first RfA was still in progress. Recently, I've been focusing a lot more on improving existing pages rather than creating new pages.
(outside comment) The Utahraptor, the pages he has created can be found with this tool. jorgenev 13:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question from /ƒETCHCOMMS/
8. Identify several potential disadvantages of child administrators on Wikipedia. In addition, identify several advantages of child administrators.
A: There are quite a few disadvantages I can think of: moral guilt for letting children do "adult work" (e.g. work with obscene material), a natural tendency for teenagers to be psychologically less stable, et cetera. As for advantages, underage users with the necessary maturity and skill level could potentially become great assets for the project as administrators.
Additional question from Σ
9. You see this page in article space while watching CSD candidates. What do you do if there wasn't already an article about him?
A: Based on the references given and a simple web search ([1]), I would quickly conclude that such a person actually exists and actually did kill six million Jews (therefore the page would not be eligible for speedy deletion per A7, G3, or G10). Using the sources available to me, I would check through the article to make sure the statements reflect what reliable sources say. Specifically, I would make sure that the references provided for the last line actually prove that the viewpoint of the majority is that "he was a crazy evil person who wanted to take over the world". Otherwise, the last sentence would appear to be a violation of WP:NPOV and would be removed.
Additional question from -- DQ (t) (e)
10. I see you have edit AIV a few times, and since it's in your "admin area" where you wish to contribute, I have a question. A user comes to your attention at AIV, the username is promotional, and there edits are promotional, and they continue to post there work at a fast rate. (ie. maybe you should block now, but edits are not vandalism) Do you: 1) Defer to UAA, another admin will get to it fast or 2) Block the user yourself. If you answer number two, which block template do you use (because some are clearly meant for one or the other. -- DQ (t) (e) 12:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: If the editor is rapidly adding spam links (spam is vandalism) and has already been warned multiple times (and is therefore editing in bad faith, and understands that Wikipedia does not exist for promotional purposes), I would indefinitely block him/her immediately so as to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia from further damage. I would notify the user using ((Uw-spamublock)), which is meant for combined spam and promotional username violations, and I would of course revert any damage done. If the user has not been warned of his/her behavior (ever), I would assume good faith, revert edits, notify with ((Uw-advert1)), as well as ((Uw-username)), and see what happens from there. (Because this question isn't specific, I can't tell how blatant of a username policy violation this is. If it is indeed blatant, WP:UAA is the place to go.)
Additional question from Ankit Maity Talk • contribs
11. Why did you want to join Wikipedia and contributed to it faithfully?
A: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge." That's why. That's also my desktop background. Seriously.
Follow up: Why include "the sum of"?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: It's a Jimbo Wales quote ([2]). That's just how the quote goes. Sorry, I thought most people had heard it before.

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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


Edit stats can be found on the talk. MacMedtalkstalk 22:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. First! Heh, anyway... I've known Guoguo for a while, and most of our interactions have come at WP:WWF, where he has done a great job leading after Mono's retirement. I've always found him to be competent and helpful, and I firmly believe he will be a net positive to the project. Now, will he be the perfect admin from day one? Probably not, but has anyone? The one thing I definitely know about Guoguo is that he knows his limits and would not bite off more then he could chew as a new admin; I anticipate him gradually learning and taking on more tasks and tools as he gains experience. In my mind, there are few non-admins who are better suited to the bit then Guoguo, and I hope the community agrees with me. Strong support -- Nolelover Talk·Contribs 22:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Added comments at 23:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support - It's time. --The Σ talkcontribs 22:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Strong support Baseball Watcher 22:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support I see no problems.Regretfully withdrawing support per SandyGeorgia--v/r - TP 22:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Support Why not? Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 23:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Strong support Having read what the users who oppose this RfA have said below, I still see no serious problems.James500 (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Support Everything I have seen from this user seems consistent with his plans as an administrator. He has been very active for a year now. 100% usage of edit summaries. He also has done great work at project wikify. Ryan Vesey (talk) 02:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Written articles and is not a jerk. Please continue to contribute on the content side. It is not about being a super verbalist, but is about reading some references, boiling down the content, writing some organized paras. TCO (talk) 02:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Support I don't know you, but TCO just summed it up perfectly. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Support. – SJ + 06:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Support. Give that man a mop! Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! (Whisper...) 12:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Support: The candidate's editing history convinces me that he would be a good admin. —Tommyjb (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Support - I see no reason not to. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. NW (Talk) 14:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support. Content creation hasn't changed a whole lot since your last RfA, but you've done enough content work since then to show me (and most likely other voters) that you are now ready for the extra set of tools. Moved to neutral. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 17:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Yes, please. Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Support A vast improvement compared to what happened 6 months ago. Minima© (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Support. Edit history and content work is good enough combined with the edit count. Summary usage seems great too! Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/Sign mine 16:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Support A good all-rounder who can and will use the extra tools positively. Pedro :  Chat  19:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Support jorgenev 20:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Strong support Im convinced, solid answers to queries thus far. Good Luck! Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Support – About time he ran for RfA. —mc10 (t/c) 22:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. I really don't see why not. Good luck. –BuickCenturyDriver 23:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Seems clueful and has sufficient experience. ceranthor 00:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Good answers, good contributions. Age issue is, to me, only a factor when it's a close call or where maturity issues are evident. Not seeing that here. Hobit (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Support Per NW, per the extremely intelligent answers, and the diligent work over the past few months. Highly trustworthy, atypically mature and worthy, quite, of adminship. Wifione ....... Leave a message 02:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. —Kusma (t·c) 07:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Support--Ankit Maity Talk • contribs 16:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Support: Not an admin?? His advice to AGF a little more on RFAs a while back to me was right on.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Support because his age does not matter on Wikipedia. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Support He won't disappoint anyone with the tools. WayneSlam 17:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Support Mature and committed. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose- OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Any particular reason why you're opposing? The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 23:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Dramatics moved to talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose, copyvio, plagiarism, sourcing, MOS and maturity concerns. "Racking up DYKs" is not the expression of maturity we should be looking for in admins, particularly since they are frequently rife with copyvios, close paraphrasing, and plagiarism. Anyone can plagiarize sources to "rack up" DYKs. For example, from your Polytrichum juniperinum:
    • (You wrote) Juniper haircap moss have a well-developed system of tiny tubes for carrying water from the rhizoids to leaves that is uncharacteristic of mosses, resembling the system that has evolved in vascular plants such as ferns, gymnosperms and angiosperms. As a result of this developed system, the stems grow taller than is usual for mosses.[1]
    • (Source says) Haircap mosses (Polytrichaceae) have a well-developed system of small tubes that carry water from rhizoids to leaves [124,136], which allows for taller stem growth than is usual for most mosses.
    Here is another from Jamar Butler (please work with the copyvio people immediately to clean up your articles and come back once you've edited for six months without any):
    • Source says: Butler finished his high school career 10th on Ohio’s all-time scoring list with 2,412 points
    • You say: Butler attended Shawnee High School in Lima, Ohio, and finished his high school career tenth on Ohio’s all-time scoring list with 2,412 points.
    There are also problems in your "GA", Battle of Atlanta (which should be delisted and undergo a source check):
    • Source says: About 4:00 pm, Cheatham’s corps broke through the Union front at the Hurt House, but Sherman massed twenty artillery pieces on a knoll near his headquarters to shell these Confederates and halt their drive.
    • You write: Meanwhile, two miles to the north, Cheatham's troops had broken through the Union lines at the Georgia railroad. However, Sherman massed twenty artillery pieces near his headquarters and had them shell the Confederates ...
    "Meanwhile"? And there is info in the article that is not in the source.
    There is much more-- those are samples only.
    An equally unimpressive feature of DYKs is that they often go up with grammatical errors and typos. From your latest DYK:
    • Once fertilization takes place, the sporophyte of the juniper haircap moss lives on the female gametophyte, growing out of the archegonia. the sporophyte consists of a foot, stalk, a spore capsule, an operculum, and a calyptra.
    I'm also concerned about your representation of sources vis-a-vis medical info (please see WP:MEDRS, and what "herbalists" believe is not the equivalent of "important medicinal uses"):
    • Source says: Herbalists considered juniper hair-cap a powerful diuretic,
    • You say: The herb has important medicinal uses because it is believed to be a powerful diuretic.
    And here is an unsourced "source":
    • it is useful in the treatment of urinary obstructions and dropsy, an old term for today's edema, which is defined by medicinenet as the swelling of tissue due to accumulation of excess water.
      • Speaking of WP Wikify, why isn't edema linked instead of this awkward uncited definition? Alarmingly, incorrectly sourced medical information was run on the main page at DYK: see Talk:Polytrichum juniperinum
    And, your "GA" Southeast Asia Treaty Organization is sourced to the Students' Britannica India !!
    I'm unimpressed by the "reward culture" aspects, so popular among children, expressed in this conversation, particularly considering the WP:OVERLINKing problem frequently found in ill-developed articles. For example, if your Hollywood Walk of Fame is typical of the linking found in the Wikify Project, there's a problem: you have linked common English words like block, sidewalk, and you've linked many common terms multiple times (I also suggest someone check that article for close paraphrasing).
    Please take some time to learn better article writing and how to avoid copyvio and close paraphrasing, and be sure to work with the copyvio people to remove any plagiarism from your articles. Finally, what does the 12 in your user name refer to? It seems to be a reference to your age, and 12 years old is NOT old enough to be an admin; I may support your RFA if you work with the copyvio folks to identify and correct problems, and if you indicate you've completed high school, where you will hopefully learn how to correctly represent sources in your own words. Because some of the sources used in your GAs are offline, I suggest they should be delisted until checked for copyvio. It looks to me like you are overly anxious for adminship, and because content creation was an issue in your last RFA, you went out and "racked up some DYKs", which is a common approch to RFA among overly anxious candidates; DYKs do *not* evidence content creation abilities, nor do your GAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sandy, I think we need to be mindful that the candidate is a minor. You raise many good points here, yet you're going about the task of spearing his RfA with such glee, with such unvarnished satisfaction that you run the risk of being seen as a person of great and unyielding spite. Your point is made. Let it go. Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 09:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Lay off tinkle-- this is supposed to be a serious project-- misrepresentation of medical information is a serious matter. If you detect any "unyielding spite", it's for the 27 folks who supported this RFA so far without reviewing content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Indeed and a serious project presumably does not permit people to bully children, particularly with the gruesome relish you are currently displaying. Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 09:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Take it elsewhere, stop badgering opposers, thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's a bit different when you're the target of attention, is it not? As I said above your point is made. You have crossed the line from a comprehensive assay of his candidacy to obligate vindictiveness. Leave the boy be. Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 10:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hopefully an uninvolved person will remove your distractive commentary to talk, where it belongs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hopefully. I should add that I am sorry to have distracted you from the worthy task of monstering a school-boy. Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    SandyGeorgia, thank you for your constructive criticism. Lovetinkle, thank you for defending me civility-wise (condescendingly as it may or may not be). However, I have a few things to point out. First, I did not write Polytrichum juniperinum, nor have I ever listed it as a DYK accredited to me in particular. It was my responsibility to check for copyvios before submitting a DYK nomination for it, though. (Similarly, the text in Battle of Atlanta about artillery shells [many of which seem to be directed at me at the moment] has existed since 2003.) I might also add that Hollywood Walk of Fame is a work in progress, one that is not even close to ready for a GA review (just take a look at the talk page). Amidst the multiple unsourced statements and sans-caption images, overlinking is a bit of a minor problem. A final note I would like to tack on is that I am not twelve years old. This won't matter to you, or anyone else, but I'm just putting it out there (User:James500 up there in the support column's got to be pretty old then, right? ). Now, if you take in all of this close paraphrasing, add it to the fact that I am a minor, and then look at my user talk page, obviously the last sentence of the discussion you linked to isn't going to sound like humor, not even with the winking smiley, and nor is the joke about James500 going to help my case. Also, I suppose with that mindset, "racked up" suddenly has a worse connotation than I had meant it to have. But anyway, you raise some good points which I will pay more attention to in the future. Guoguo12 (Talk)  11:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you for the considered response. You are the main contributor to that article, you did submit it to DYK (which is unfortunately known as Copyvio Central and the place where RFA candidates can easily "climb the grease pole to RFA"-- all DYKs should be checked at RFA when noms use them to further their candidacy) and you extensively rewrote it, after which no other significant edits were made. [3] I do appreciate the considered response, but you need more editing and writing experience. It is also unfortunate that, as I now see pointed out below by Kiefer, some personal info about you stood on your user page for a year and a half before an admin removed it-- these things should not happen, and they do happen partly because of the problems at DYK and how it is used to further RFA candidacies. When a previous RFA notes lack of content contribution, and your nomination puts forward noticeably your new content contributions in response, those need to be good contributions and clean articles if they are to represent your best work and knowledge of Wikipedia. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    PS, on an independent matter, technically I should have scrubbed any copyvio issues as I found them, but I am getting on a plane in a few hours, and someone still needs to deal with the issues in all of the articles mentioned above-- I have tagged the "medical" issue that is a big (personal) concern, but have not dealt with close paraphrasing et al. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would like to add that the reason the diff you provided makes it seem like I rewrote the article is that I was doing layout work, including removing extra spaces and so on. Such changes result in highlighting in the diff where no major change has occurred. To prove it, try the revision links at the top of the diff. Before I edited and after. Guoguo12 (Talk)  11:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you for the explanation, but that doesn't remove all of the problems in your articles, rather it only highlights some of the problems caused by DYK being used to fuel RFAs-- resulting in frequent copyvios and, in this case, a faulty medical hook being placed on the main page. Correct medical info is as important as correct BLP info-- if it's going on the main page, it needs to be right. Presumably, you nominated the hook (??), where presumably, someone unfamiliar with MEDRS approved it. DYK is a big problem generally, even more so when used to advance RFA candidates-- hopefully they will clean house, but it hasn't happened in many years, so we continue to see unfortunate RFAs like this one, where Supporters accept DYK and GA as evidence of content creation without examining that content. Thank you again for the considered response, best wishes,SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Oppose. Age, maturity (per SandyGeorgia, SG), plagiarism of extensive paraphrasing (SG). Promoting inadequately sourced herbalist claims in a DYK was a severe error, for which a deeply heartfelt apology is due, and atonement (e.g. removing herbalist junk from WP) should be undertaken; too many people have died because of herbalist quackery. Otherwise, a nice youth with great promise: Most of us wish that we had such poise and ability at his age.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC
    Care to explain what you mean by linking this? 28bytes (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That was the first edit that had not been wiped clean. (It is unfortunately puerile vandalism.) You may freely substitute a later edit if you find the vandalism distracting you from the point: The point is that GuoGuo12 is a minor who (because of immaturity/innocence) disclosed personal information and needed adult supervision (administrative erasing of page history).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ah. There are probably better ways to illustrate that private information was redacted than linking to that particular edit, but OK. 28bytes (talk) 12:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    To clarify, it wasn't exactly that I "needed adult supervision". I requested the information to be removed for privacy reasons. Guoguo12 (Talk)  13:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Oppose. For the reasons enumerated above. Perhaps a good wikipedia contributor, but not ready for admin tools. MarmadukePercy (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Oppose - another case of close paraphrasing here, where the source says, "Allen’s experience shaped an educational model that knew illustration was a commercial art, one that needed to integrate professionalism with artistry"[4], and our article says "In 1997, Allen became the Illustration Chair of the Maryland Institute College of Art, where he integrated professionalism into the artistry curriculum." Personally I think it's nice to see students adding to the project, learning to write, learning to use sources, etc. But it's really important that in all that learning, the core policies are understood and taken to heart, especially before asking to be made an admin which essentially cannot be undone. For these reasons I have to oppose. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I'm curious if others find that a case of close paraphrasing. I'd say it's less-than-optimal but not problematic. I could easily see myself writing an article after reading a bunch of sources and ending up with that sentence not having looked at the source for a day or two. But perhaps I'm way off base.Hobit (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I don't really know what to say if "to integrate professionalism with artistry" and "he integrated professionalism into artistry" isn't considered a close paraphrase. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. I was unsure earlier, but I'm very concerned about the close paraphrasing issues, as well as the age-related discussion, raised above. The answer to my question was a bit brief and failed to identify any specific advantages. I'd also like to see much more content work, but what distresses me a bit more is the privacy-related talk above. This morning, I found a thread on a certain unsavory website about Wikipedia, and I'd be interested in a response to these privacy concerns, as the candidate has said that he did not need "adult supervision". (If the candidate wants a link to that thread, please email me.) In any case, I feel uncomfortable with child admins in most cases, though not all. If it's clear a user is a child, then I will lean oppose based purely on that, simply because admins deal with adults, especially business professionals, on a regular basis, and it would be extremely unprofessional for a company rep to see that their page had been deleted by someone who appears to have no job experience. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Edit: link to said website removed. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I already saw the link. It did not make me feel good about myself, but in any case, you seem to be misquoting me. I didn't say I didn't need adult supervision—I do, of course. There are many things I have yet to understand about the world, about life. I was merely clarifying the reason there are a dozen revisions missing from my userpage, that I realized I was wrong to post personal information about myself and I had it removed. No use, as it turns out. Guoguo12 (Talk)  17:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sorry if I misinterpreted what you said above, I probably just misread "it wasn't exactly that I 'needed adult supervision'". In any case, I didn't actually read the link very carefully the first time and didn't realize it had some content that shouldn't be made more public. My main concern was, while you seem to have realized it was wrong to post the personal information on Wikipedia, you didn't seem to follow it up by taking steps to hide such data elsewhere, and as a minor, you're much more vulnerable to being harassed like this as an admin. (Although, adults are targets, too; cf. PMDrive1061's unfortunate situation, and the WMF is still slow in taking steps to stop this sort of abuse.) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Oppose due to the numerous concerns raised above. Swarm X 17:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Oppose I think SandyGeorgia was a little harsh, but certainly correct. Age never bothered me and having done my usual checks, including random diffs, I was an enthusiastic support. Given SandyGeorgia's in-depth research, it's hard for me to keep that enthusiasm. I have to be honest with myself here and oppose.--v/r - TP 17:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. I have concerns about the candidate's age. I believe he is a minor. I'm not sure that minors should be granted adminship. But his record is good and he has quality supporters. So for now I sit here. Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 01:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There is no current policy that governs the age of admins. The probable only factors relative to a candidate's age that can be taken into consideration are the general levels of maturity and cognition. Many minors have clearly demonstrated their ability as sysops in which might be considered by some to be an adult's domain. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Quite. But what of a sysop's access to material that might be deemed inappropriate for a minor, with potential legal ramifications? Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 07:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yep, that's why we have Wikipedia:Advice for younger editors - but we can't force them to tell their parents what they're doing, nor can we install any software that detects how old they are ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well that's certainly something to consider. Thank you for taking the time to inform me of the relevant policies and other arcana. Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Definitely a minor. An administrator properly wiped-clean the history of his user page because of his disclosure of personal information.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Actually, that was oversighted, not just revision-deleted. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Please distinguish the oversight and revision-deletion. (Also, that diff was the first available. It is unfortunately a schoolboy's vandalism and bigotry. Later edits were also removed from history.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Some of it was oversighted, some of it was revdeled. 28bytes (talk) 12:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Regretful neutral, but moral support. I'm not worried about the age issue, but after seeing the concerns raised by SandyGeorgia and several other users, I must, unfortunately, move my vote from support to neutral. I'm sorry. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 17:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category