Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Milk's Favorite Cookie
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Milk's Favorite Cookie's edit stats using "wannabe Kate" tool as of 00:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC):
{{{2|}}}
[edit] Edit count for Milk's Favorite Cookie
User:Milk's_Favorite_Cookie
run at Mon Mar 24 01:02:30 2008 GMT
Category: 3
Help talk: 2
Help: 3
Image talk: 1
Image: 115
Mainspace 10564
Portal: 24
Talk: 1603
Template talk: 90
Template: 85
User talk: 6628
User: 1504
Wikipedia talk: 34
Wikipedia: 1626
avg edits per page 1.60
earliest 02:14, 18 August 2006
number of unique pages 13926
total 22282
2006/8 1
2006/9 0
2006/10 0
2006/11 7
2006/12 0
2007/1 0
2007/2 2
2007/3 0
2007/4 0
2007/5 0
2007/6 0
2007/7 0
2007/8 3
2007/9 0
2007/10 0
2007/11 16
2007/12 2204
2008/1 7970
2008/2 8624
2008/3 3455
(green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red denotes
edits without an edit summary)
Mainspace
92 Heuschrecke 10
82 Rickey Henderson
62 List of Super Bowl champions
52 Vince Lombardi Trophy
50 Macao Grand Prix Formula 3
45 Boston Celtics
43 SKN St. P�lten
32 Super Bowl XXXIX
32 Anzio War Cemetery
29 1963 Boston Patriots season
25 Giuseppe Fioravanzo
22 August revolution in Vietnam
19 Earl Johnson (baseball)
17 Siegfried Guggenheim
16 Friedrich Kaulbach
Talk:
18 Kevin O'Halloran
5 Rickey Henderson
5 Rickey Henderson/good article attempts
3 Babe Dahlgren
3 Ee Hoe Hean Club
3 David Aardsma
3 Continental Airlines
3 Dehousing
3 Lou Collier
3 Global warming
3 John Henry Johnson (baseball)
3 Earl Johnson (baseball)
2 Jamie Moyer
2 Joel Johnston
2 Elden Auker
Help:
2 Edit summary
Help talk:
2 Variable
Image:
8 Thetrauhumanistlogo.png
4 PiedCormorant MCedit1.jpg
4 Dave Bing.jpg
4 Ryry5logo.png
3 Schizophyllum commune with Pollenia sp. male on Betulaedit1.jpg
3 Clay Anderson spacewalk.jpg
3 Adminteeshirtstill.png
3 Scott Parazynski space.jpg
2 Black hole quasar NASA.jpg
2 Exploration rover nasa mars.jpg
2 Signposts.jpg
2 Crystaleyes cover.jpg
2 X43a2 nasa scramjet.jpg
2 Header of my userpage.jpg
2 Cape vincent NASA.jpg
Portal:
4 Baseball/Selected biography/March, 2008
4 Boston Celtics/Intro
3 Baseball/Selected picture/March, 2008
2 Boston Celtics/Selected picture/1
2 Boston Celtics
Template:
13 Newsletterbot
10 WP CELTICS INVITE
6 WPMAVSWELCOME
4 Did you know/Next update
3 Using fb
3 POTD/2008-03-13
3 Vandalism information
3 WPCELTICSwelcome
3 User WPBoston Red Sox
3 Start-Class Redsoxassessment-nested
3 POTD/2008-03-18
2 BostonRedSox-season-stub
2 WikiProject Dallas Mavericks
2 WP Mavericks INVITE
2 Di-replaceable fair use-notice
Template talk:
82 Did you know
6 X1
User:
473 Milk's Favorite Cookie
171 Milk's Favorite Cookie/userpage
79 Milk's Favorite Cookie/articles
76 Milk's Favorite Cookie/monobook.js
54 Milk's Favorite Cookie/awards
53 Sharkface217/Award Center
44 Milk's Favorite Cookie/Status
40 Milk's Favorite Cookie/smallbarnstars
40 Milk's Favorite Cookie/WPBC
32 Milk's Favorite Cookie/Sandbox
27 Milk's Favorite Cookie /Sandbox
25 Milk's Favorite Cookie/Admin coaching
23 Newsletterbot
21 Milk's Favorite Cookie/Articlesincreation
20 Milk's Favorite Cookie /Accomplishments
User talk:
1191 Jj137
259 Milk's Favorite Cookie
242 Basketball110
116 Sharkface217
92 Stormtracker94
89 WBOSITG
65 HPJoker
47 JiaAn94
38 Milk's Favorite Cookie/Top
32 Nothing444
31 The Transhumanist
30 Chetblong
30 Juliancolton
28 WJBscribe
21 SQL
Wikipedia:
285 Administrator intervention against vandalism
46 Featured picture candidates
43 Changing username
29 Bots/Requests for approval/Newsletterbot
29 Help desk
22 Sandbox/Archive
22 WikiProject Military history/Assessment/BCAD/6
21 Huggle/Whitelist
20 WikiProject Boston Celtics/left side
20 WikiProject Boston Celtics/right side
19 WikiProject Boston Red Sox/left side
19 Featured list candidates/List of Super Bowl champions
17 Requests for adminship/Ohmpandya
13 Wikiproject New England Patriots
13 WikiProject Boston Red Sox/right side
Wikipedia talk:
8 AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage
4 Request an account
2 WikiProject Australia/Newsletter
2 Most visited articles
2 WikiProject U.S. Roads/Newsletter
If there were any problems, please email Interiot or post at User talk:Interiot
.
Based directly on these URLs: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]
- The edit count was retrieved from this link at 01:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC).
[edit] Friday's oppose; moved from main page
-
- I know this comment is going to attract lots of negative attention, all I'm going to say is that I believe Friday is eminently qualified to make such a comment, is respected and is not the sort of person who would make such a comment if they did not believe it were correct.Nick (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- I am sure that Friday believes it is correct, I would merely like to ask why he thinks that admins should be adults? (I disagree but I would like to hear why) Harland1 (t/c) 18:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- A great deal of drama and wasted time is caused by admins with bad judgement. So, I require good judgement from candidates. Not all adults have it- but someone who is not yet an adult is very unlikely to have it. So, I'd want strong evidence of maturity beyond their years to support such a candidate. In the entire rest of the world except Wikipedia, requiring adulthood for positions of responsibility is generally taken for granted. I submit that it's us who've got it wrong here, not the rest of the world. Friday (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- I feel that it's a shame that someone would oppose such a qualified user just because he's a kid. Milk's Favorite Cookie has used good judgment at least 99.9% of the time (as far as I can see), and I'm sure that percentage is much more than some current admins. - DiligentTerrier and friends 20:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- It seems around half the people commenting here would disagree wih you. Food for thought. Nick (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- While I disagree with this rationale, perhaps because I am biased, I do accept the reasoning. However, has this user ever stated he was a child or are we assuming it because of his actions? I'm not attempting to insinuate anything, I am legitimately curious as I see nothing on his user page to indicate age. SorryGuy Talk 00:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- His userpage states he was born during the Clinton administration and it's apparent that he's in HS. Personally, I believe that it's irresponsible to make judgements on editors based on age. If you think an editor is immature, point to your evidence. Don't stereotype other editors, please. Enigma msg! 06:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Completely pointless comment Wow, that would actually put him as younger than I am. — scetoaux (T/C) 00:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Friday: I'm perfectly willing to accept that this user may not have good judgement, if you will provide the evidence, I would also like to see the proof that on wikipedia (not in the real world) users who are between the ages of 15 and 7, as MFC must be, are not possessed of good judgement. Harland1 (t/c) 09:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think the 26 opposers before Friday have, combined, produced plenty of evidence re. this user's judgement. I also note that Friday said "someone who is not yet an adult is very unlikely to have [good judgement]". Clearly MFC falls into this group. Unless evidence contrary to Friday's assertion here can be brought forward (and I don't think it has been), then the assertion can stand. Hopefully this answers your questions. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, the 26 opposers have come up with some 20 diffs being places where MFC has, in their opinion, not acted wisely. Some of these concerns over these diffs are legitimate, but some of the diffs' importance in showing that MFC has bad judgement I would question. However let that stand, 20 examples of mistakes. So out of 22282 contributions the opposers can come up with 20 examples of mistakes, or in other words the opposers are basing their opposes on c. 0.0897585495% of MFC's edits, whereas the supporters are basing their supports on c. 99.9102414505% of MFC's edits. And you haven't answered the 2nd part of my question (I would also like to see the proof that on wikipedia (not in the real world) users who are between the ages of 15 and 7, as MFC must be, are not possessed of good judgement). I take issue with this sentence: 'I also note that Friday said "someone who is not yet an adult is very unlikely to have [good judgement]". Clearly MFC falls into this group. Unless evidence contrary to Friday's assertion here can be brought forward (and I don't think it has been), then the assertion can stand.' Since when has a statement been true until proven false? :) What I was asking for was proof that this was true, not another assertion to that effect. One last point Friday said earlier: 'In the entire rest of the world except Wikipedia, requiring adulthood for positions of responsibility is generally taken for granted. I submit that it's us who've got it wrong here, not the rest of the world.' I regard this as being slightly misleading, in the rest of the world 'requiring adulthood for positions of responsibility is generally taken for granted' because for these positions one need qualifications, which of course children don't have or the 'positions of responsibility' generally take the form of jobs, and those which are not named as jobs and require no qualifications are often given to children. As qualifications are not required for adminship (by qualifications I mean, degrees, a-levels, GCSE's etc.) and adminship is most definately not a paid job, I fail to see how this argument based on a stereotype an stand up. (Sorry to go on about this so, but it is one of the few things that makes me furious, being 14, Grrr...) :) Harland1 (t/c) 13:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Age isn't a legit reason to oppose. Basketball110 Go Longhorns! 15:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Age has nothing to do with judgement, and I do not believe all admins should be adults. I have seen plenty of younger admins make better decisions than an adult/older admin. Age should never be used as a stereo-type or bias. Thedjatclubrock :-) (T/C) 16:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Age isn't a legit reason to oppose. Basketball110 Go Longhorns! 15:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, the 26 opposers have come up with some 20 diffs being places where MFC has, in their opinion, not acted wisely. Some of these concerns over these diffs are legitimate, but some of the diffs' importance in showing that MFC has bad judgement I would question. However let that stand, 20 examples of mistakes. So out of 22282 contributions the opposers can come up with 20 examples of mistakes, or in other words the opposers are basing their opposes on c. 0.0897585495% of MFC's edits, whereas the supporters are basing their supports on c. 99.9102414505% of MFC's edits. And you haven't answered the 2nd part of my question (I would also like to see the proof that on wikipedia (not in the real world) users who are between the ages of 15 and 7, as MFC must be, are not possessed of good judgement). I take issue with this sentence: 'I also note that Friday said "someone who is not yet an adult is very unlikely to have [good judgement]". Clearly MFC falls into this group. Unless evidence contrary to Friday's assertion here can be brought forward (and I don't think it has been), then the assertion can stand.' Since when has a statement been true until proven false? :) What I was asking for was proof that this was true, not another assertion to that effect. One last point Friday said earlier: 'In the entire rest of the world except Wikipedia, requiring adulthood for positions of responsibility is generally taken for granted. I submit that it's us who've got it wrong here, not the rest of the world.' I regard this as being slightly misleading, in the rest of the world 'requiring adulthood for positions of responsibility is generally taken for granted' because for these positions one need qualifications, which of course children don't have or the 'positions of responsibility' generally take the form of jobs, and those which are not named as jobs and require no qualifications are often given to children. As qualifications are not required for adminship (by qualifications I mean, degrees, a-levels, GCSE's etc.) and adminship is most definately not a paid job, I fail to see how this argument based on a stereotype an stand up. (Sorry to go on about this so, but it is one of the few things that makes me furious, being 14, Grrr...) :) Harland1 (t/c) 13:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think the 26 opposers before Friday have, combined, produced plenty of evidence re. this user's judgement. I also note that Friday said "someone who is not yet an adult is very unlikely to have [good judgement]". Clearly MFC falls into this group. Unless evidence contrary to Friday's assertion here can be brought forward (and I don't think it has been), then the assertion can stand. Hopefully this answers your questions. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- His userpage states he was born during the Clinton administration and it's apparent that he's in HS. Personally, I believe that it's irresponsible to make judgements on editors based on age. If you think an editor is immature, point to your evidence. Don't stereotype other editors, please. Enigma msg! 06:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- (EC, and I do want to put this age-related comment here) Well, federal and state governments all over the world disagree. Age is used as a measure of judgment quite frequently - alcohol, tobacco, pornography, lotto tickets, etc. I think someone putting an "age requirement" on their personal RfA standards is completely acceptable. I don't agree with it, but that's not the point - it is certainly a "legit" reason to oppose. Tan | 39 16:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- No, age isn't a legit reason to oppose. Maturity level, and judgment skills are a different story. Comment on judgments, not stereo-types about age and judging. Thedjatclubrock :-) (T/C) 17:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- (unindent) It's blatant stereotyping, and you could argue it borderline violates WP:NPA. Comment on the edits, not the user. If you feel a user is immature, you have every right to oppose them. But point to diffs to back you up. Using something on someone's userpage to discriminate against them is wrong. Enigma msg! 17:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- While I disagree with this rationale, perhaps because I am biased, I do accept the reasoning. However, has this user ever stated he was a child or are we assuming it because of his actions? I'm not attempting to insinuate anything, I am legitimately curious as I see nothing on his user page to indicate age. SorryGuy Talk 00:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- It seems around half the people commenting here would disagree wih you. Food for thought. Nick (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Adminship is not an award for good editing nor for a friendly attitude within the community. An administrator must be able to do the right thing in any situation, it's a big responsibility. It's explicit in WP:NOBIGDEAL, and Jimbo knows that, he desysopped admins in the past. So maturity is a crucial point. The age matters not, the edits do. The number of edits is not an excuse. I'm sure that Friday wouldn't oppose based on the age if the user had demonstrated good judgment in almost every situation. Which is not the case here, CenariumTalk 18:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- In which case why did he bring age into it at all? Harland1 (t/c) 19:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I'm, of course, highly biased in the opposite direction about this, but I agree with Friday that there's a clear correlation between age and judgment. While there are statistical outliers, I feel that it's been shown that MFC is not one of them, no offense to him. Twenty mistakes in judgment is quite a few. Since when does one lapse in judgment carry the weight of a single edit? Remember that most edits are either semi-automatic vandalism reversion or very minor edits to articles. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 21:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- In which case why did he bring age into it at all? Harland1 (t/c) 19:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I feel that it's a shame that someone would oppose such a qualified user just because he's a kid. Milk's Favorite Cookie has used good judgment at least 99.9% of the time (as far as I can see), and I'm sure that percentage is much more than some current admins. - DiligentTerrier and friends 20:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- A great deal of drama and wasted time is caused by admins with bad judgement. So, I require good judgement from candidates. Not all adults have it- but someone who is not yet an adult is very unlikely to have it. So, I'd want strong evidence of maturity beyond their years to support such a candidate. In the entire rest of the world except Wikipedia, requiring adulthood for positions of responsibility is generally taken for granted. I submit that it's us who've got it wrong here, not the rest of the world. Friday (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- I am sure that Friday believes it is correct, I would merely like to ask why he thinks that admins should be adults? (I disagree but I would like to hear why) Harland1 (t/c) 18:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- In case anyone cares, I've attemped to clarify my position on this. It may be worth having a stock answer laying around, as there were several objections one other time I opposed based on age as well. See User:Friday/Ageism. Friday (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I still disagree with aspects of your position. In my opinion, age should have no factor in how someone votes in an RfA. There are many young admins that do a better job that old admins. - DiligentTerrier and friends 21:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- That is fine, but go ahead and comment about in on the talk page of User:Friday/Ageism. This conversation has gone on too long here and is no longer relevant to the canidate. Perhaps the above thread should even be moved to this RfA's talk. SorryGuy Talk 00:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- I still disagree with aspects of your position. In my opinion, age should have no factor in how someone votes in an RfA. There are many young admins that do a better job that old admins. - DiligentTerrier and friends 21:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I know this comment is going to attract lots of negative attention, all I'm going to say is that I believe Friday is eminently qualified to make such a comment, is respected and is not the sort of person who would make such a comment if they did not believe it were correct.Nick (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
