Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship: Difference between revisions

Archives

2003 - 2004 - 2005 - 2006 - 2007 - 2008 - 2009

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

It's about time don't you think? Don't worry, this isn't me bitching about people opposing over age (well, maybe it is...) I've given up on the idea that we evaluate people on RFAs through their edits, not the number on their userpage, and accepted that people are entitled to oppose minors. I can completely understand, and agree with some of the reasons, though of course not so strongly. So why the new thread? Ageism has reached a new level of absurdity, as pointed out by Cosmic Latte here, where someone is being opposed because they are minor, despite the fact they are an adult(!) Now I can understand why someone wouldn't want a child helping to run one of the world's top ten visited websites, but to oppose over a joke comment like that? Even when it has been pointed out, numerous times on the page, people are still insisting on using this reason. I'm almost tempted to support the man to attempt to offset some of the more absurd comments (and yes, they are absurd, because they are simply untrue) made in the oppose section.

And there's some who complain we don't have enough admins... this sort of thing is why. Well done. Majorly talk 19:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree in principal, though it is worth noting that the RfA in question would probably still be failing even if the obviously dumb votes were stricken. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try to imagine if the candidate's only "fault" was the issue being discussed here. Majorly talk 20:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really "well said". "Overstated" would be more appropriate. There seems to be only one user, User:Xdenizen, who really thinks Baseball Bugs is too young. More people have mentioned his maturity (which indeed has little to do with age) than age. Age is simply a non-issue in this request for adminship. I just don't want this used as a selling point to form a policy against age-based opposes. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point of this thread. And besides, there were (when I last looked) several opposes along the lines of "He's only 13". Such misstatements have no place here. The point of this thread is to attempt to put a stop to opposes based on false information, especially when the person making the false comment refuses to budge. Majorly talk 20:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, we come back to this point. Not every user is the same and every user can mature overtime. Does that mean because I'm 13 I shouldn't be an admin? I have matured alot since my last ageism discussion here on Wikipedia and I believe I'm almost ready for a mop. But should I be denied just because?N.G.G. 20:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the purpose of the thread - this thread is for discussing when people are opposed based on false information. This time it's age. Anyhow, I can think of numerous reasons why you could be denied adminship, not that I really agree with any of them, as we have several brilliant "minor" admins, and some atrocious "adults" as admins. Majorly talk 20:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I distracted from Majorly's main point. Getting things back on track, votes based on false premises should be banned. I assume the 'crats do this, but it certainly wouldn't hurt if one of them stated as much here. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And by "banned" you mean "ignored" I hope :) -- Avi (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thank god I wasn't up for an RfA or that probably would have garnered me 10 oppose votes! Hiberniantears (talk) 20:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep it in mind -- Avi (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Majorly, I can't see any crat not discounting any !votes based solely on age in this particular RfA. BB has indicated that he is over 18 and explained the origins of the joke. Other's were familiar with the joke as well. Thus, I think your concern is unfounded. Many of the people who have opposed over the age have been contacted, and some of them have revisited their original opposes. One has reworded it while another struck theirs.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• At this rate we'd lose admins faster than we gain new ones. - Mailer Diablo 10:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People are getting smarter, though. I just approached someone yesterday to nominate him/her for RfA and s/he said no. :( -- Avi (talk) 11:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an unwritten policy that we all agree on, that discrimination on the basis of race, gender, nationality, religion, and sexual orientation is not acceptable as a reason for an RfA opposition. Age should be included in this as well. Kingturtle (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't agree, because race, gender, etc. have little to nothing to do with how someone will contribute as an admin. A less mature admin could be a problem. I would probably not oppose on that ground, but it is legitimate.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The key is "maturity". Opposing for age is not legitimate if the editor displays no signs of immature behavior. There is a common sense reaction that makes most of us think a 13 year old should not be an admin. However, the sole criteria upon which any editor should be judged is their contributions. A history of immature contributions (including off-wiki behavior that stems directly to on-wiki events) rightly sinks RfA's because it directly correlates to someone being a bad admin. However, there is no direct correlation between youth, and success or failure with the mop. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on the substantive issues, I'd like to note that age-selection on Wikipedia will encourage otherwise qualified candidates to lie about their age. While this practice has some benefits (encouraging minors to lie about their age) I'd prefer we not institutionally encourage lying in our administrators. The question remains however - what can we actually do about it?--Tznkai (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I had no idea that certain admins who I respect can't vote yet in the real world. But if someone is really 13, say, and tries a RfA, I'm going to be looking through his edits very carefully before supporting because even the most mature 13 year old has moments of childishness. I would say a very young editor has to meet a higher standard with me, fair enough?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is pretty close to my view of things as well, in that I hold a bias that a 13 year old is less capable than a 30 year old. However, there is no shortage of 30+ editors making imbeciles of themselves on the 'pedia to belie my bias. I suspect we could come up with a list of such editors and admins (past and present) who fit that bill. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completely disagree. Age should not be in that list. While I am willing to evaluate people based upon their individual contributions, I do think Age is a valid concern. A mature 15 year old kid is still a 15 year old kid. A mature 15 year old kid is still going to have immature 15 year old friends. A mature 15 year old kid, may still make mistakes when around those immature 15 year old friends---whether it is succumbing to peer pressure or making a simple mistake such as leaving a computer logged on while going to the bathroom. A 15 year old is much more likely to have friends over to their house and be goofing around than a 40 year old. A 15 year old can (IMO) be an admin, but I am going to pay a LOT more attention to his edits than I would somebody whose age I don't know. I am also going to have a shorter leash on immature behavior.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of many immature adults, incredibly so. Some high profile editors on here come to mind. Majorly talk 17:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I won't argue with that, but as a general rule, adults have more self restraint than teenagers. Heck, college students might pose a bigger risk than teens based upon my reasoning above ;-) But the reality is that there are reasons why just about every country has various rules establishing minimum ages to perform certain activities. Some are more cast in stone, while others aren't; some are higher than 18, others are lower; but the point remains that there are reasons why soceities have minimum expectations often defined by age. Again, I am willing to consider people under the age of 18, but if they were careless enough to put their age on the internet, then they have (IMO) already shown at least one sign of bad judgment/carelessness! If you don't want to be treated like a kid on the internet, don't advertise your age. (Think about how many women obfuscate their gender on the internet because they don't want to be treated like women often are online---or men who pretend to be women online!) Disclosing your age is not required, but if you do so, then you should realize the ramifications of doing so.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in general, but some societies in various countries (even our own country, at one point) have/had restrictions set by race, religion, gender, etc. Thus, just because it's accepted by society doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, even in America today you can still discriminate based upon race, gender, or religion---you just have to have a valid reason to do so and be prepared to do so within strict guidelines. As for being right/wrong, the difference between youth and religion/sex/gender descrimination is that every culture in every time period has treated youth differently--and there are valid reasons to do so. Youthfulness is also the only one of those criteria that naturally changes with time. Every adult has been there... and every youth will eventually out grow it. You can't say that about the other criteria.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, true. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"A mature 15 year old kid is still going to have immature 15 year old friends." Don't be so sure. One of my good friends started college at 13. The friends she saw regularly were all several years older than her. Highly intelligent children aren't necessarily interested in spending any time with immature age-peers. Dragons flight (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are always exceptions, which is why I am willing to look at them on a case by case basis. One of my cousins got her driver's license when she was only 13--again extenuating circumstances and her mother had to get a judge to approve it, but exceptions always exist. But that is where the individual has to demonstrate that they are the exception to the rule. But pointing to the exception does not disprove the general concept. There are valid reasons why cultures have always treated youth differently than "older more mature" people. Yes, you can point to immature adults and mature minors, but guidelines established by communities based upon age, are based upon general practical experience.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a similar note, a kid who edits Wikipedia for a living isn't going to have many friends. ;) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a similar note, an adult who edits Wikipedia for a living isn't going to have many friends.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"a kid who edits Wikipedia for a living isn't going to have many friends" sure about that? ;) Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am personally of the opinion that legal minors should not be allowed (and certainly actively discouraged from) editing wikipedia, never mind admining. My reason is not primarily about the quality of their actions, although on average younger editors will be less mature and more problematic. (And before anyone attacks that statement as ageist, I ask what sane society would let a 9 year old drive a car or fly a plane if they showed that they could pass the required proficiency/quality test?). No, my principle reason for discouraging minors is for their own protection. Editing wikipedia can have serious consequences. You can incur legal liabilities for libel. You can unwisely give out information leading to stalking or real-world harassment. And, perhaps most worryingly, you can leave an on-line trail that will follow you into adulthood via google and can have serious consequences for you life and reputation. Those are serious risks, which all editors must weigh up. However, I am of the opinion that it is irresponsible for us to expose minors to such risks. In real life, where minors take on risks, parental consent is required. It should be the same here. No, we can't stop people editing as minors (if they don't declare their age, there's not much we can do), but it ought to be officially discouraged - and indeed known minors should probably be blocked. Sorry, but this hobby is too dangerous for people who are not legally of full age to consent to risk exposure. (An additional reason for preventing minors is that we are also responsible for the protection of out BLP subjects, and I don't think it is responsible for us to place their reputations in the hands of children - or annons, but that's another matter). These are the reasons why I will oppose all minors on RfA as a matter of principle. Is this ageist? Yes, in the same way it is ageist to support prohibitions on minors smoking, driving, flying, fighting in wars, buying firearms, watching porn etc. Discrimination is not always a bad thing.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vicki Van Meter... I'm just saying... Hiberniantears (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, as noted above, that this is effectively unenforceable. Frankly, I worry that rather than encouraging editors to be as transparent as possible from the beginning (which is good for everyone, not just admins) we're encouraging the exact opposite - because as soon as someone posts their age / location / workplace anywhere they're discriminated against because of it. Assuming that people will be found out eventually is not a solution to this, and when that happens it always leads to high dramaz of the EssJay variety. Incidentally, I've seen very little correlation between professed age and maturity on here in the majority of cases. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't let 9 year olds drive cars, but we do let 13 year olds drive tractors (in multiple U.S jurisdictions), and I believe in some places, fly planes. There is no magical moment at the age of majority you escape or gain liabilities or the sense to avoid it- and the stupid things I did on the internet problem is far worse for the college students we've got here. The fact is, minors who will do the majorly stupid things you describe are indistinguishable from adults from our perspective. I have no problem with putting some really loud and obnoxious "Please, monitor your kid's activities on Wikipedia, just like you should be but are not doing on Facebook, Myspace, Blogger and everything else" notice everywhere that matters, but the legal liability problem is not ours, but their parent's to worry about. Our ability to protect them is limited, and blocking them will do nothing but encouraging them to lie more.--Tznkai (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. — Dan | talk 14:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. Of course we can't effectively stop minors editing. But if we say "we are happy for you to edit, and may even make you an admin" then we are actively encouraging it. We are responsible for that - and that is not good. If we say "we don't as a matter of policy allow minors to edit unless they've got their parent's permission" then it is down to parents as you say either to give permission, or to monitor their child's editing. Only they, and not us, can actually stop children editing. At least giving a warning would redflag parents who DO monitor activity that Wikipedia editing has risks.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship is a carrot for good behavior - but it isn't really the problem. No where do we advertise "Hey kids! Come edit and be an admin?" We encourage everyone to edit - and ambition and civic duty takes its own course from there. That doesn't stop them from wanting to become involved and respected at WP:RFAR as a commentator, at FAR, as a creator of lists, or whatever. Wikipedia is its own reward for plenty of people, adminship is just one of more commonly acknowledged cookies. You and I probably would agree on what warning to publish, disagree on its effectiveness, but you still havn't adequately addressed the behavior modification problem. Excluding minors by policy will only encourage minors to lie. Let them learn that lesson at college or the workplace, and not here.--Tznkai (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, they lie? Should we care? Better than us lying by pretending it is OK, and risk free, to edit as a minor. At least if they have to lie, they know they are doing something unhealthy. Indeed, if they are truthful and declare their age, they are at more risk from ill-intended people. Best they don't edit. But if they are going to do so, best they know it is a bad thing to do, and conceal their age. Banning minors would have the effect of sending the right signal.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the dangers the world presents to children, Wikipedia is not exactly public enemy #1. As websites go, we're the town library of the global internet village. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but not an excuse for us being irresponsible. Plus, we are a serious project that also impacts on living people outside the internet village. Our standards ought to be higher. What you are saying is that it is OK to let kids play with the wildcats because they are less dangerous that the lions that the zoo next door lets them play with.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think administrators should be adults and that users should be over 13, but for different reasons. Administrators should be adults based on experience and responsibility. Sure, some who are younger may seem more responsible, but from my knowledge even the most responsible child admin still gets into situations that adults probably wouldn't. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

your identity on Wikipedia is entirely effective, i.e. regardless of who you are in "real life", you will be judged by your actions (edits) exclusively. If you are a baboon acting like an academic, you will get the respect due to an academic. If you are an academic behaving like a baboon, you will get the respect due to a baboon. Nobody will ask you for pictures or proof of identity. On exactly the same terms, if you act like a grown-up, you get the treatment due to grown-ups, and if you act like a five-year-old, you will also be treated accordingly. Your "real age" is really perfectly irrelevant, and shouldn't even be at issue here. We are interested in people with an understanding of what an "encyclopedia" is, that's all. Such people will tend to have an education, and consequently will normally be above a certain age, but there will always be child prodigies and grown cretins, and the former will be made an admin while the latter will be slapped with a ban after a couple of warnings, no "real life" questions asked. --dab (𒁳) 14:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would only be true if your real-identity was never revealed, and your wiki activities had no impact on the real world. But both are untrue. Wikipedia does not exist in another dimension from the real world. It can, and often does, impinge on people's real lives and can have longterm consequences on them. We should not be asking minors to perform a risk-assessment, which if they get wrong, could impact on them. Your response is a palpably false wikiality.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We approved a 14-year-old admin not long ago, and he's more mature than I am. There are other minors who are also regulars here at WT:RFA, and they are similarly mature. The minors who have passed RFA in 2008 and 2009 are all exceptional people; we need them, and I get the sense that Wikipedia is an important part of who they are. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't need them (although it looks like we are willing to exploit them). But maturity is not the principle reason I'd ban minors from editing.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia could also probably get by without its black or Muslim admins. But it wouldn't survive with a rule that black or Muslim admins are not welcome, nor would I want it to, and I feel the same way about 13- to 17-year-old admins; it's not reality-based ... these admins have caused no problems, to my knowledge, and certainly fewer problems than adult admins. I personally draw the line at 12, mainly because a number of important U.S. laws draw the line at 12, but that's been a moot point in 2008 and 2009, because I'm not aware of any RFAs for 12-year-olds that had any chance of passing. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am unconvinced that this criticism or its originating argument is on point. Furthermore, why are we protecting minors and not everyone else? I've found the average 16 year old does less stupid things than the average 20 year old, and a lot of the 50 year olds I've met need to be kept away from any sort of social interaction for their own sake. Why draw the line at age of majority? That line has a lot more to do legal consequences than social responsibility, nevermind trying to find a consensus point between the prevailing English speaking cultures on how to treat minors. Oh. Should we treat an emancipated minor any different? More questions and problems than answers, and not a practical consequence in sight. This is a shakey principle to stand on, and hardly a tangible benefit from the lot.--Tznkai (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why draw the line at age? Well, because all societies do. We have disallow people from buying tobacco or fireworks because of their age. Maybe requiring an IQ test before being allowed to buy cigarettes would make more sense - and it would also probably lead to lower tobacco sales - but that's not what is done. It is a perfectly respectable and logical things to say "this activity has risks, which are not suitable for children to take". People may find that unnecessary, bit it is not a particularly problematic principle. Now, of course, anti-smoking laws can be, and often are, circumvented. That doesn't make them crazy to have.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tobacco leads to health issues. Fireworks can set a city on fire. Nothing on Wikipedia is irreversible. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask why age, I asked why the age of majority? Is editing Wikipedia a more less dangerous activity than donating blood, but equally significant as voting (U.S) Less risky than consenting to sex? At 14 you're criminally responsible for your actions, at 13 you can take part time employment, 16 you can enlist. Where does the risk of editing wikipedia fall on that scale? Why the age of majority? --Tznkai (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must note that although I feel age should not be an acceptable criteria, when taking Bureaucratic action in closing an RfA, I do not discount or disqualify opposition statements that focus on age. But I will continue to argue in these debates that editors should be judged on their merits, accomplishments, activities and interactions within the confines of Wikipedia. Demographic information should not be a factor. Kingturtle (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• More to the point, editing an online encyclopedia is in no way akin to driving a car. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Because it's hard to libel someone with a car? --Ali'i 19:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I've seen plenty of libellous signs attached to vehicles. Useight (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, that, and anyone can use the rollback feature. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should not be a determinant factor, but I disagree that it isn't a relevant factor. I would never oppose "per 15" and would discount (not discard) opposes based solely on age. But, I do think discarding relevent information can be a mistake. Take religion for example. Say a candidate identified themself as a Catholic on their talk page. Opposing a person based upon their religious views is rightly viewed as a bad thing. Now let's say that the person who identifies themself as Catholic is part of Wikiproject Catholicism and Wikiproject Saints. Again, opposing them based upon that would be wrong. Now let's say that same person who identifies themself as Catholic has made a few edits wherein they removed some questionable material critical information about the Pope and the Catholic Church. That is going to have me looking more closely at the persons contributions and asking if the edits were indicative of a POV pushing. I might view those edits a little differently knowing they were made by a Catholic than somebody whose religious beliefs I don't know. Similarly, if we know somebody is a minor, that does impact the way we view their edits. The Catholic editing Catholic articles needs to take extra effort to ensure their edits are NPOV... the minor needs to take extra efforts to make sure their edits are showing maturity.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see a problem with minors editing Wikipedia. Sure, those under 15 or so can be highly immature, but 16 or 17 year olds are basically adults. I don't see how they magically become responsible the day they turn 18. One of the main reasons older teens have such a hard time is that they are expected to act like adults (Be responsible, mature etc) yet are not treated like adults. I don't know what Balloonman is talking about when he says minors find it hard to get work. Around here being a minor means your most likely to get work because you don't have to be paid the minimum wage. 16 year olds can have sex in my coutry—in fact they can have sex much younger, it's only enforced if they have sex with someone much older than them. Editing Wikipedia doesn't have anywhere near the consequences sex can have (Babies and STDs), so I think about 14 or 15+ is alright, unless they're clearly immature. Simply put, I odn't think anyone should oppose and RfA based solely on age, although sure, let it be a contributing factor if you like.--Patton^t/c 18:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps you are citing something that I've said in the past, but could you reference the comment above, I don't know what Balloonman is talking about when he says minors find it hard to get work?---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said it late lat month in another age thread.--Patton^t/c 19:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could not help reminding The 40-Year-Old Virgin in this conversation.--Caspian blue 19:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

eh? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

eh? (I notice that you seem to like me so much recently). Having sex at 15~16 is not a measure of showing how a person is matured in present. In the sense, 40-Year-old virgins could never be accepted as adults.--Caspian blue 19:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Although I'm not sure what "I notice that you seem to like me so much recently" implies. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In colorado, where I used to manage a large box store that hired a lot of teens, we wouldn't hire somebody under the age of 16---despite the fact that you could do so legally and do so for a fraction of the cost. If you were under 16, you found it extremely difficult to find a job because of all of the rules/requirements related to the hours, length of job duration, and supervision expected for those under 16. 16 and 17 years olds didn't get discounts on minimum wage, thus their employability is contigent upon the state of the economy. I've heard it referred to as the McDonald's Index to the economy. If the economy is doing good, then the person serving your coffee at the drive through at McDonalds will be some teenager with braces. If the economy is in trouble, then the person serving your coffee at the drive through at McDonalds will be some 40 year old business executive. Most places, all other things the same, will generally hire a random adult over a random teenager.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The economy is doing terrible at the moment and someone I know lost their job at a supermarket to 2 teenagers who work part time.--Patton^t/c 19:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can talk anecodotal til we're blue in the face, I could bring in my experience as a Youth Minister or with Junior Achievement. But anecdotal evidence is nothing, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics in January 2008, The unemployment rate for teenagers (18.0 percent) was higher than that of other age groups. On March 10 2009, they wrote The jobless rate for teenagers was little changed from January at 21.6 percent as compared to the national average of 8.1%. That rate is about 2-4 times every other identified segment except blacks! Or how about the nice little graph on this page that shows a 30 year period where people 16-19 have ALWAYS had a 7-8% higher unemployment rate than those in the 20-24 age bracket. Those 20-24 have consistently had a 4-5% higher unemployment rates than those who are 25-34. And guess what, those 25-34 have consistently have had a 2-4% higher unemployment rate than those over 35! Over 35, there doesn't appear to be any consistency... but teenagers have consistently been unemployed at much higher rates (10+%) than people over the age of 34! A quick look into the facts will show the avalanche of research on the subject and the repeated conclusions that teenagers are the ones who have the hardest time finding jobs and are typically the first to be terminated. (Unemployment rates, it should be noted, are defined by those who are unemployed, but looking for a job.)---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teenagers dont't need jobs. I never had a job at that age untill I was going on a school tour. Got a job to pay for it then gave it up :p--Patton^t/c

ergo, part of the reason teens have a harder time finding a job---they are unreliable. Companies don't want to train somebody who is going to quit after they make a magic number required for band camp. The thing to remember, about the statistics above, is they are not based upon the population as a whole, but rather defined as those who are unemployed but looking. My stay at home wife does not impact the unemployment numbers, nor does the high schooler too involved with extra curricular activities. Unemployment rates are only those who are actively looking for work. I was not speaking out of my arse, but the reality of the real world.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a country. Being an admin is not a big deal. I know this comment is brief, but it is to the point. Kingturtle (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoorah. Also, as a side, the legal age for criminal responsibility where I live is eight.  GARDEN  22:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now speaking of legal age for criminal responsibility, let's compare Wikipedia policies with the law. It is quite simple actually: you break the rules, you have a negative track record, along with other unpleasant things. Corresponds with the current situation over here. Now, most minors know that the law is not to be messed with and stay away from committing crimes. Over here, most minors also know that policies are not to be messed with (especially when you have been repeatedly warned and your name appears on the ANI multiple times) and keep away from policy breaches. You are now assuming that all minors do not have a sense of maturity and are sure to make unconstructive edits over here, be it immediately or at a later point of time. You don't think that such people don't have the sense to think before they act, do you? Chenzw  Talk  12:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to have been no movement at Wikipedia:RfA Review/Collate, or at any later step in the review process, since October 2008. If this review is defunct, would someone remove the The current RFA process is under review ... wording at the top of this page, and mark all the review pages as historical? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan. After all, any attempt to reform RFA always ends in failure, so it's not like this wasn't expected. Majorly talk 17:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the banner. If I missed some major activity by all means put it back, but the process certainly seems long-dead. ~ mazca ^t|c 18:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to continue supporting it for a couple of reasons. Firstly I changed jobs, reducing my free time considerably and secondly, I began to feel like Sisyphus with some of the responses the work was getting from some quarters. The pages and responses are still there, should someone feel like picking up the baton. Alas, I feel we already know the answers, yet lack the will to grasp the nettle. Oh well.Gazimoff 23:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a relief. Although I have read the RFA Review comments and I often steal from them, I didn't want to highlight them, because the recommendations are mostly based on impressions of RFA from the first half of 2008. RFA has changed a lot, so I think we're better off focusing on one RFA at a time. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I've been taking in all these arguments about age and adminship but the argument has been one sided and now it's time for younger editors to provide my their agreements on this once more but this time in a more civil manor. And so I present to you Wikipedia: RFA my argument.

I think it's about time that a new policy should be added to Wikipedia. The main argument about all editors younger than the age of 17 just isn't ready to be and admin. Some people use connections to real society to make their argument saying "we wouldn't let a 9 year old fly a plane even if he had qualifications" and such along those lines. But once again, Wikipedia isn't the real world. Though you could get sued or you may have info leaked, that doesn't mean a younger editor isn't able to avoid those problems. Most of the time, younger editors are able to pass RFA and then the word of their age doesn't get out until after the RFA. But really, Wikipedia is not that serious. People may say "it's one of the most visited sites" but once you get up from the CPU you lead a total other life. So why should your life in the outside world be connected here. Why can't responsible young editors who can go long enough without loosing their cool be able to receive a mop just because they have a bed time, or have homework, or doesn't drive themselves where they need to go? What if we said that older editors were just to serious and narrow minded to understand everything on Wikipedia. Things would go up in an uproar. Me as an editor didn't prove my maturity as a new editor but some could argue to think that over the time of just 6 months, I was able to change my attitude and control and think about what I type before I press save. So if I ever go for an RFA after about 2 more years and I'm 15, will I be denied just because. If so is it really fair. Some argue that young editors shouldn't be permitted to edit on Wikipedia. Do you know how many edits would be loss. Wikipedia is already slowing down but a slaughter of accounts would almost kill off active editing So I need all those editors who read this, be opened minded and think, would want to be discriminated against just because. Thank you--N.G.G. 20:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some people will automatically oppose you because you revealed your age. Most people will now pay more attention should you ever decide to run and will be more prone to writing off immaturity/mistakes as a sign of your youth. Is it fair? Yes, you chose to reveal your age. You thus invited being viewed and judged as a teenager. Now you need to prove that you are not a typical 15 year old, but more responsible and less childlike... but even if you didn't reveal you age, you probably would have been categorized as a teenager anyway... and that is based upon what I knew about you before this post. In other words, your youthfulness is apparent, you didn't have to tell us you were a minor for us to know suspect that already!---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not want to get into this, but I can't keep away. To the original poster: You will be opposed, by myself at least, for adminship for as long as you believe "But really, Wikipedia is not that serious". Editors with that sort of view should not be allowed anywhere near the edit button, especially where BLPs are concerned. I implore you not to edit any article involving any living person. GTD 20:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EC"I'm afraid your post, which I could summarise as "Wikipedia isn't too serious - it has no real-world consequences and just like a video game you can walk away" demonstrates precisely why minors should not be allowed to edit. They are unable to assess the real consequences. Wikipedia is NOT video game - real people (especially the subjects of articles) can really get their lives screwed up. Minors should have no part in this project.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)"[reply]

First off I never said Wikipedia had no consequences and comments liek that are what get conversations like this started. That is totally unecassary. I had no mention of a video game and no matter what I say all your seeing it as a 13 who has no idea what he's doing. I don't think you realize that you can have 100 good articles, the most civil user ever or whatever else you'd like hear about yourself, but you could get up from your compuetr and get busted for drunk driving. Get my point?N.G.G. 20:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Just Saying.N.G.G. 20:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is what is being challenged here. Majorly talk 20:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I get busted for drunk driving, assuming nobody else is hurt, I only damage myself. If I were notable and you were an administrator and, for example, protected a defamatory version of an article about me that caused me real-world harm, you can rest assured I'd be suing you. Open editing is a good way to start a project such as this, but is it really a decent way to refine it? GTD 20:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good example, if you were busted for drunk driving, then that might be news worthy especially if there are RS. A better example would be, Jane Doe on her blog alleged that George the Dragon sexually molested her, and that got protected in a page or even added by an admin thinking that Jane Doe who happens to be notable is a RS.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Majorly

Well then your questioning the foundation of Wikipedia?N.G.G. 20:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, he's saying the foundation is being questioned. Ironholds (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not. The person who started the thread is. Majorly talk 20:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no part of the foundation that says youth shouldn't edit so how am I questioning it?N.G.G. 20:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Dragon

Once again you would be loosing thousands of valuable edits. That would be like stopping IP;s from editing. Sonn good things would happen but there would be a major loss.N.G.G. 20:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offence, but your youthfulness is showing extremely transparently in your comments - through numerous misspellings, odd punctuation, and just an immature feel to it. I'd be perfectly happy for IP editors to go, in any case. It's not difficult to register. Majorly talk 20:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Youth showing. :D I have heard that before. How I talk and how I spell, two different things. No connection to age, sorry.N.G.G. 20:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What they all said. I don't automatically oppose on age grounds, except when the candidate is obviously under the age of 13 (the age of responsibility under the Florida law under which Wikipedia operates). The sheer cluelessness of your posts – which seem to boil down to "Wikipedia doesn't affect people in the real world" – certainly makes me absolutely certain to oppose any putative RFA from you. – iridescent 20:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How you talk specifically. I know things like dyslexia can affect spelling in all ages, and of course not all adults are perfect spellers. But, again, no offence intended at all, but you sound like a child. I would oppose any editor that sounded like a child if they went for adminship. There are some younger admins on here who I would have supported even if I'd known their age, because they were way beyond their years. Likewise I'd oppose an immature adult. Majorly talk 21:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my gramma and spelin are attrocious... but I've worked it into an identifiable style (I've had posts where I forgot to log in identified as mine because of the style!)... that being said, I doubt Majorly would ever accuse me of sounding like a minor because of it. Spelling and grammar aren't the only give aways... there are plenty of other reasons, that you are apparently unaware of, that scream out "teenager." Too many things that without having to know your age, would trigger alarm bells on the basis of maturity!---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a WikiGnome, I pick up on many minor (no pun intended) mistakes. For example, like Spartacus says, his spelling and grammar aren't that great. Aside from intentionally misspelling "grammar" and "spelling", "atrocious" and "giveaways" were also misspelled. He also ended a phrase with a preposition ("that you are apparently unaware of") and did not precede a prepositional phrase with a comma ("without having to know your age"), although he did correctly end it with a comma. But I'm not going to grammar police people for minor errors (I'm sure someone can pick apart this comment and find some things wrong, too), my point was more along the lines of "it's how you say it, not how you spell it." It's difficult for me to say what, exactly, it is that makes a post sound like it was written by a younger individual, but said posts are often easy to pick out of a crowd, and it is often not the spelling that gives it away. Useight (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's why I do not support programs like "hooked on phonics." I learned how to write phonetically... the only problems is that I had a major speach impediment as a child. When you pronounce the first meal of the day as "Breadfast" until you are 13 it is hard to learn the proper spelling when you finally realize that it's breakfast.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why was this thread opened? We already have one open ageism thread; no need to stir the pot once more. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's a nice thought :D.N.G.G. 21:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I give you all win. I really need to refocus on editing. I can't think of anything to sway the audience so apologies.N.G.G. 21:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good idea. I wouldn't think about adminship for a while if I were you either. Just some friendly advice. Majorly talk 21:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry I'm not planning to run. Thanks.N.G.G. 21:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit contradictory to your initial post, though. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julian: He (I confidently albeit stereotypically assume this is a he) did say "if", not "when". NGG: you asked about foundation policy; FWIW it's "In general, most of our admins should be college students or graduates. Some gifted and profoundly gifted young people would be equally qualified.". – iridescent 21:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm delighted to be called gifted (admittedly by proxy) I must say that there was no editsummary on that edit. Colon oh.  GARDEN  21:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo doesn't use them. – iridescent 21:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a little ironic. Ah well, I'm probably the only one who cares, so..  GARDEN  21:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if he doesn't use them, then I'll never vote for him at RfA! I don't care who he thinks he is ;-)---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 08:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously think an account with a history like this ever had a chance? Only three articles ever edited more than 10 times, one of which is his own autobiography; 16% of edits to the mainspace; twice as many edits to his own talkpage as to all mainspace articles combined. Hell, I'd WP:SNOW it within minutes. – iridescent 08:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually the 50% of edits in the User Talk section that would kill it... what does he think this is, "MySpace" or "Facebook?"---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time to desysop, methinks... —Dark ^talk 11:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been sitting back and looking at this thread. I have several comments:

@NGG: I do agree that young editors who run for adminship will be mercilessly barraged with narrow-minded opposes due to their age. Wikipedia is somewhat biased against teenage (and younger) editors. It's not something that can be stopped, thanks to GTD and Scott.

@GTD: You point out that underage editors are not mature enough to deal with the controversial area of BLPs, therefore should not be allowed to become an admin. Where is it set in stone that all admins must deal with BLPs? At a New York meetup last year, we discussed young admins possibly leaving such duties to older, of-age sysops. Younger sysops (I'm saying 13 as a prerequisite minimum, since I think that being a teenager is the absolute minimum an admin should be) would be fine blocking vandals, deleting certain types of pages, protecting heavily vandalized articles and those kinds of tasks. Just because there is one area that younger admins should not wander into does not mean that young editors shouldn't be admins at all.

@Scott: According to your perspective, all underage editors should be banned from editing. Does this mean that the few who take it seriously enough and actually realize that it is harmful to some people should be stopped from editing for no apparent reason? Don't blanket everyone under the same identity. I'd like to point out that I don't really see any occasions of children being seriously harassed. Most stalking incidents I've seen are from high-profile adult admins who deal in contentious areas. Most incidents of such BLP "trouble" come from adult editors/admins. Lastly, JarlaxleArtemis, whom some would say is our most notorious vandal, is over 18. How prejudiced is that? Allowing someone like him to edit while people like Anonymous Dissident are not allowed? Take a good look at what you are saying, and don't blanket all underage people who edit Wikipedia under the "naive" label. Sam ^Blab 11:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, the reason you "don't really see any occasions of children being seriously harassed" is because you and your friends don't appreciate the sheer amount of tedious and mindnumbing work we do deleting and oversighting reams of personal identifying information posted by kids who seem to think they've wandered into "Facebook with articles". I seem to recall 200+ revisions of your user page having to be baleeted not so long ago for precisely this reason. – iridescent 11:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Shaw once said: "Crude classifications and false generalizations are the curse of organized life." I have no qualms with people's views on age & maturity, but be very careful on the extent of the prejudices you possess (in other words, keep a open mind). Age is not the sole criterion for maturity; many teenagers I know act far beyond the social expectations of their age. I am not asking for you to disqualify age from RfA, I am asking for you to look through the contributions of the editor and judge accordingly. For a further insight, I find that some teenagers/children are able to deal with emotional turmoil better than adults. (However these are exceptional teenagers). I agree that (in fitting with the stereotype) most teenagers are unable to handle administrative duties; but some can handle them better than adults. Be aware that there is no arbitrary age that changes people's maturity. (You can't wake up on your 18th birthday and say "Oh look! I'm 18, therefore I am much more mature than I am yesterday!) —Dark ^talk 00:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I think I said on one of these endless discussions, "you only realise they're kids when they act like kids". If the hypothetical super-bright seven year old edited quietly with none of the hallmarks of an immature editor (temper tantrums, misuse of words, overly fixated on appearance as opposed to content be it main or project space, a tendency to chat beyond what's reasonable, an apparent craving for popularity…) then nobody would have a problem because nobody would guess at their age; likewise, an adult who's perceived as immature (which is, after all, what this thread originally started as) won't get any special treatment because they're over 18. – iridescent 00:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a crazy idea, it might just work. Why don't we judge potential admins by their contribution history? If we do that we can ignore their age, religion, nationality, the color of their skin, and whoever they most recently voted for in their local elections. I guess the point I am trying to make is that we should judge people by the content of their character, not some arbitrary social stigma.

My advice to potential admins is not to reveal your age, religion, nationality, the color of your skin, or whoever you most recently voted for in your local election. It is not relevant to the post, and people will let these facts bias them. Protect your privacy and be a great Wikipedian, nothing is stopping you from doing both. Chillum 00:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If someone knows personal information about you they will prejudiced. It's not just against people under 18: a 67 year old retired doctor, for example, will get away with much bigger mistakes than a divorced 35 year old who has never worked. Similarly, someone who has revealed their religious beliefs will probably be opposed for some minor mistake on a religous article, while someone who has not will probably get away with the same mistake.--Patton^t/c 15:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I don't tell people I am a 6 foot tall black leprechaun from Cuba who believes that unicorns are my personal saviour... OOPS! Chillum 15:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha!--Giants27 ^T/C 15:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sam/Shappy talks the talk, but given he was caught with his trousers down (ie with 10 troll accounts!), perhaps he's a good example of why minors should be encourage to keep off WIkipedia for their own good GTD 19:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And given that this guy, this guy, this guy, this guy, this guy, and many many many others have at least ten socks each, perhaps they are good example of why adults should be encouraged to keep off Wikipedia for their own good. Majorly talk 19:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The project would be better off if it self-immolated GTD 19:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that settles it, we'll have to discourage everyone from editing. We should probably change our slogan to "Wikipedia: the free encyclopedia that nobody should edit." Useight (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my joke, if that's the best word to describe it, does anyone really think an encyclopaedia with articles edited by kids is really an encyclopaedia of any worth? For examples of why the kids are the chaff among the wheat, just take a look at a few examples on kiddy-pedia GTD 19:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some of our best article writers are kids, so, uh, yes I do. How many featured article have you written then George? Certainly fewer than Anonymous Dissident, Julian Colton and Caulde. Majorly talk 19:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopaedia first and foremost. For that reason, I'd not want to start an article in an area I'm not university-level qualified in or where I could be claimed to have a conflict of interest. And although most seem to ignore WP:NOTNEWS, I fully believe in it GTD 11:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What featured articles has Caulde written? None that I can think of. Claiming credit for is not the same as writing. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waltzing through the door Majorly opened, I have to disagree to say that younger editors have not necessarily written the best articles, but they seem to be writing the most, and I see this as a facet of youth. They write the most because they write about the same things over and over. This could be an individual idiosyncrasy, but I tend to see a contrast between this kind of template-like article writing and Henry David Thoreau making the perfect pencil. It is not personally challenging. I know I'm going to ruffle feathers, but I don't think it's a surprise that I think this because I've stated it elsewhere. I respect the articles about storms and roads, and I respect the editors. However, I would respect the editors much more if they challenged themselves by writing about something they had to teach themselves. We do not grow unless we are challenged. Not diversifying one's topics avoids the challenge, and I see this as a route too safe. --Moni3 (talk) 12:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I certainly do think the contributions of young people have worth. It is foolish to assume that a whole class of people are incapable of contributing. Just judge people the merits of their contributions, not some arbitrary metric. A few bad examples does not demonstrate your point at all. I know of admins who are very young that have done a great job. Their age was not an issue because they acted well. Chillum 19:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asking Wikipedians to do something reasonable is completely unreasonable :) Majorly talk 19:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saying someone's contributions are worthless and crappy because of their age is just plain stupidity.--Patton^t/c 20:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone at any point said that? No. Quit trolling. – iridescent 20:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you read the above discussion please? :P--Patton^t/c 22:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...that's a bit harsh —Dark ^talk 21:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ Iri - "does anyone really think an encyclopaedia with articles edited by kids is really an encyclopaedia of any worth?" That appears to be saying what Patton was detesting.  GARDEN  21:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only person trolling here is George The Dragon, who has written a massive five articles, the best of which is a stub. Majorly talk 22:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Does anyone really think an encyclopaedia with articles edited by kids is really an encyclopaedia of any worth?" That's up to you to decide, then. In the meantime, I encourage you to take a look at User:Juliancolton/Content. Seeing as I've written or contributed to nearly 30 pieces of featured content, and I've preformed 5,000 logged admin actions with few issues, it seems clear that I should be banned due to my immature behaviour. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should avoid becoming upset with baseless opinions and simply put them aside as baseless opinions. To be clear, I think we can safely ignore the idea that young people are by default unproductive as being without basis in reality. Chillum 22:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is still fairly insulting to the editors mentioned, especially by an editor as non-productive as GTD is. But yes you're right, we should ignore baseless comments and trolling when we see it. Majorly talk 22:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet, I'm more productive than someone ;-), 140 articles+ best of which is C-class, go me :-). Haha.--Giants27 ^T/C 22:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chillum you are a voice of reason in the otherwise crazy world that is Wikipedia...--Patton^t/c 22:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are some 40 year olds that are more immature than a 13 year old. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 08:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This one is even more ridiculous than most. Editing a new page doesn't even create a patrol log entry. Can we please stop now? Mike R (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is arbitrary about it? A lack of experience in new page patrol may indicate that the candidate is not ready to take on the common administrator task of assessing articles tagged for speedy deletion. While I don't agree with requiring experience related to all admin tasks, I can understand why some editors do. This line of reasoning is narrow and stringent, perhaps, but neither arbitrary nor ridiculous. For the record, this pertains to Oppose 32 in Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Thumperward_2. Skomorokh 16:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed that comment and found it particularly arbitrary, in the sense that it seems to be an oppose based on a very specific requirement without justification about why that specific requirement is in itself necessary. It's less stupid than a few oppose reasons I've seen, though - at least you could vaguely correlate NPP with admin abilities, though it's massively over-specific. There always have been, and always will be, people who oppose both for strange, specific reasons or odd personal requirements. ~ mazca ^t|c 16:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might make sense if Thumperward made some comment about wanting to be a sysop for the tools to speedy delete, or to have some other action regarding new pages, but he hasn't made any reference other than in an optional question about speedies. If someone says they want to do image work, but haven't contributed in any image areas, it might make sense to oppose on those grounds, or if someone states they want to do work in clearing the editprotected backlogs, but have never come close to that area, an oppose for that reason might make sense. To me, a specific and stringent qualifier is okay for someone to have, but the oppose should be weighted by the crats less where the area of expertise wanted by the voter does not match the area of interest of the candidate. But maybe I'm dreaming that the crats don't just count the votes and push the button as the numbers read. Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I've little interest in new page patrol, and considering the amount of grief I get for my inclusion standards anyway it's not really an area I'd touch with a bargepole. I only answered the questions on speedy deletion because not answering questions is yet another arbitary reason to oppose. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of sounding ignorant, according to my log I didn't record any page patrol until a year AFTER I got the mop. Maybe this wasn't recorded prior to then... Hiberniantears (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The feature was turned on in November '07, a month after your successful RfA. Skomorokh 16:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... And here I thought I was always a new page patroler... Learn something new every day. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me emphasize my point that the only way to get an entry in the patrol log is to click the patrol link at the bottom of a new article. Editing the article will not create an entry and will cause the "patrol" link to disappear. That is why pointing to someone's patrol log is ridiculous. A good new page patroller will most likely make at least one edit to a new page, whether to tag, copyedit, categorize, add references or whatever. Mike R (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and will get angrily barked at for wasting their colleagues time for their trouble ;) Skomorokh 17:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note also, this oppose reason has been used more than once. Jayvdb used it on Baseball Bugs. Mike R (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was more of a suggestion of an area to refocus in. The actual oppose seemed to be the concentration of the editor's activity on the dramaboards. Skomorokh 17:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Among the logs at the bottom of X!'s new edit counter, "Pages patrolled" is included and counted. Kingturtle (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike R, do you have any idea how huge the unpatrolled-page backlog is? It's nearly a month long -- and it would be even worse if it wasn't for the fact that articles expire from the unpatrolled queue after 720 hours. I personally put a huge amount of effort into preventing this; I have pestered several different individuals into creating useful software tools, I have gotten people to do NPP by directly explaining to them on IRC why it is important, and it is directly as a result of my actions that Brion Vibber completely redesigned the interface for the unpatrolled queue (because I was putting a huge strain on the servers). And despite all this, the buffer - the time between "now" and "the time when unpatrolled articles will begin expiring from the queue if no one does anything" - is still barely three days. I got Greg Maxwell to create an "overflow" list - a page that lists all articles created since the implementation of the patrol feature which did not get patrolled. It is obscenely huge and will choke your browser. This is why I oppose flagged revisions, by the way - because we're barely keeping up with flagged newpages. And we're only keeping up with flagged newpages because of ME PERSONALLY PUTTING A HUGE AMOUNT OF EFFORT INTO IT. When I took a day off recently, the buffer dropped by almost a full day because no one else was working the far end of the queue. The whole point of the patrol feature is to reduce duplication of effort. If no one clicks the "patrolled" link, there is no way for anyone else to know whether the page has been checked yet. Maybe someone edited it, yes, but perhaps that was just an automatic spellcheck reflex or a bot cleaning up some garbage. And yes, there is still garbage in the newpages queue even when the articles are almost a month old. How many more hoaxes and lies and attack pages and spam pages went unnoticed? We don't know. How can I get more people to patrol newpages? It was suggested to me that if I oppose RfAs on the grounds of the candidate not having done sufficient (or any) NPP, it might draw some attention to the phenomenon. If you don't understand why it's important, after all, then are you really fit to be an admin? DS (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And if you don't understand that there are thousands of different ways to contribute to the project and that we should evaluate each candidate for who/what they are, then (to quote you) are you really fit to be an admin? I'm sorry, but opposing somebody because they don't work in your pet project is not fair to the candidate in question. This is already a harsh enough process without people pushing their own agenda and demanding work in an area they have no interest in working. This is the wrong way to go about getting support.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And besides, they might all understand that it's important, but not want to get involved. My guess is that most administrators understand that articles for deletion is important, or patrolling biographies of living people for libel, etc. is important, or mediating certain naming disputes including protecting pages and blocking editors is important, but they don't want to get involved. And that's okay. Some will, some won't. Not every admin has to be a vandal whacker, a speedy deletioner, nor a page protector. That's a feature, not a bug. "Understanding" and "doing" are separate concepts. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the patrol log for any editor is really all that indicative of whether they've been involved in NPP. First, because the "mark patrolled" hasn't been around forever. Second, I don't think its all that uncommon to do patrol-like work without bothering to hit the button. I know a few people who do that, and its not like I spend my days talking to people about NPP. Avruch ^T 19:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was my main point as well. Also, I dislike the idea of opposing candidates just to draw attention to an area of the wiki you feel needs more hands. BUT I must say that after reading DS' impassioned plea, I will personally commit to doing some new page patrol. Mike R (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look over something and don't patrol it or tag it for deletion, that is the same as having the Backlog reviewers look at it in four weeks. Plus, there are scripts that one can use to speed up the process; the one I linked to makes the "Mark as Patrolled" link more accessible. In addition, every article tagged with Twinkle or Friendly is now patrolled, so tagging articles is an easy way to show patrol experience.

I've patrolled the backlog with Dragonfly6-7 before. It took me 2-3 hours to clear about 24 hours worth. I looked at over 500 pages, and made changes or tagged for deletion to many of them. That's 2-3 hours of hard, intense backlog work. Dragonfly does at least that every single day. I honestly can't keep up with that, so I've faltered behind. As of this post, I've patrolled 3612 pages. That's about two weeks of pages, I believe, or maybe 30 hours of solid effort at NewPages. While an admin candidate does not need that much experience at NewPages patrol, even 5-10% of that is not completely unreasonable to ask for, as it will provide experience in dealing with new editors and those in the academic or business community. Many of the you probably want Flagged Revisions, right? The backlog for that will be massive; much more work than we have right now at NewPages. If we can't handle NewPages, how are we ever going to handle Flagged Revisions. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle and Friendly only do so if you access the page from the new page log. Since bugzilla:15936 was backed out again in rev:46542, they can't if you open a page in some other way, so a lot of people who do NPP but don't use the NPP log simply aren't able to mark as patrolled, lacking the link with the rcid. Get a dev to work on that problem and you will notice a lot more patrolling.
In any case, that's no discussion for here, and opposing over it is a pretty pointy way to attract attention to that problem. --Amalthea 20:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder it hasn't been working properly.

And yes, that probably is a good idea. Off I go from RfA; no need to Soapbox about NewPages here. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: how will we ever keep up with FlaggedRevs? I'm sorry, but the answer to that is actually somewhat obvious. Before I get to it, though, let's keep in mind that FlaggedRevs isn't some wholly new and untested extension that we might use the live 'pedia to beta test. It has been done on a sizable, popular Wikipedia and the results are in. They indicate that the backlog is not unmanageable. Now to why: Watchlists. New pages are, well, new; no one looks at them in the normal course of doing something else. Patrolling new pages is a specific and boring task. Keeping an eye on the pages you've contributed to, or are interested in, is a completely different animal. The comparisons are facile and fall down upon inspection, and let's not continue to repeat them as if they were gospel. Avruch ^T 20:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I could ask a favor, could we put the Flagged Revisions discussion on hold for the moment (since the last poll had more than 560 votes and enough energy to power the Wikipedia server farm), so that we can get back to the very important points that were brought up? DS says we need more people doing NPP, and he's totally right, and RFA regulars are saying that you'll interfere with how RFA works if people start feeling free to demand that every candidate be committed to their favorite area of the wiki, and that's right too. My small contribution to this conversation is: I'm doing my part, by doing a lot of CSD work, and by notifying taggers (by {{talkback}} rather than leaving notes on their talk pages ... they didn't like that) whenever I decline a speedy for any reason, and I give the reason on my talk page. I think we owe it to candidates to carve out a set of rules, a set of "safe" things they can do involving deletion work that won't come back to bite them at RFA, as long as they're careful. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I should've framed my comment with how it relates to RfA. The complaint on the table is that this is an arbitrary issue to use while voting. The history is that votes based on arbitrary criteria (self nom, edit count, wikiproject endorsement, # FA/GA, etc.) have typically been the subject of much criticism and drama. The response is that NPP is actually very important, and chronically understaffed; a connection was drawn to the amount of work involved in FlaggedRevs review, which suggests that FlaggedRevs participation will not only become an epic problem but also the source of arbitrary criteria at RfA. The points my two responses attempt to make are (1) patrol tagging does not directly correlate with NPP (2) NPP work is not necessarily a good barometer of admin quality, particularly for admins without a stated desire in CAT:CSD (3) FR and NPP are different types of tasks, requiring different motivation and with materially different integration into the normal work of editors.

What might be a useful topic of discussion is whether we should be very supportive of requests from "generalists" at RfA. We need admins primarily to address backlogs in admin-only tasks, but we regularly pass requests from people who are unlikely to get involved in boring backlog work. In this view, DragonflySixtysevens approach makes some sense - to get voters and candidates to re-evaluate what it means to be an administrator, and who ought to apply and pass. Looking for work in specific areas might get us more background support types and fewer guns blazing forum moderator types. Whether that would be a net positive or not, who knows. Avruch ^T 22:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit of New Page Patrol, and I'd recommend it to any inclusionists out there, You'll get to include loads of articles into the wiki, but the price is that you won't wade through much of the cruft, attacks and other waste of electrons out there before you moderate your inclusionism. A suggestion to Dragonfly and others who wish to promote their favourite neglected chore - pick the next overly narrow inexperienced candidate and advise them to broaden their experience with a bit of New page patrol or whatever your favourite task happens to be; For maximum impact do this as their only moral support. But you don't need to oppose on an issue to raise it with a candidate - I've !voted support whilst mentioning a "negative thats not worth opposing over" and usually had positive responses from the candidate. PS Pages created by admins and bots are automatically marked as patrolled. WereSpielChequers 23:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this does not seem like a worthwhile oppose. About a year ago, admin hopefuls were coached to get FAs, just to see how the process went. Though I think everyone should contribute on that level, it creates poorer articles because the admin hopefuls aren't really interested in the topic and the FA star. I would oppose someone who demonstrated such a misunderstanding of the FA process that it alarmed me, but I would not oppose an admin who shows no interest in content. Similarly, someone who opposed a candidate based on lack of new page patrol experience when they clearly show proficiency in the areas they claim to getting admin tools for would be so spurious it would not warrant a serious response. --Moni3 (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result table of the RfA polls lists Support, Opposition, and Neutral counts and a support percentage. The support percentage seems to be calculated based on only S and O values, and Neutral is discarded. This is wrong, IMHO. Percentage should be calculated on all votes cast. Given that the granting of adminship is supposed to be based on high levels of standard a neutral vote can hardly be judged as a positive influence on the tally. In reality, a neutral vote is a vote of non-support. Kbrose (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A neutral vote is merely a comment. It carries no weight numerically, but can be used by the 'Crat to get a better feel for... something. I'm not really sure. There's a reason that section is all the way at the bottom of the page. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So would neutral be counted as oppose, or support, then? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try to think of it as more of a hug, than a vote. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(2x(edit conflict))IMHO we shouldn't assume that a neutral comment is an oppose comment. Instead, let's let people that want to oppose put their opposes in the oppose section, and leave neutral to those who want to make the fact that they are sitting on the fence clear. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Neutral does what it says on the tin - the editor commenting either has reservations or is not motivated enough to support the candidate, but equally does not find anything so worrying that they should oppose.

Neutral is probably the most interesting section on any RFA - and very often actually contains the most insightful and useful comments. FWIW I have no doubt all our active 'crats weigh neutral comments accordingly, and indeed have seen RFA's both pass and fail based on the commentary contained within this section. Pedro :  Chat  21:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a perennial question. The consistent consensus is that the percentages are measures of opinions pro or con. Our 'crats do a fine job as it is :) -- Avi (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The percentage is only an indication in which way the RFA is heading, nothing more. So it's not important whether the neutrals are counted in it or not. As multiple people already pointed out, a 50% RFA can pass and a 80% can fail. SoWhy 21:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. --Ali'i 21:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't go that far. Neither has ever happened, as far as I know :-P Avruch ^T 22:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen an ~80% RfA fail and a ~65% RfA pass. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a comment is neutral, it is by definition not taking a position. It should not be counted. Chillum 23:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've always thought of a neutral as a half-support, half-oppose. Reyk _YO! 03:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You guys might or might not be interested in what I hope will turn into a thread at WT:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 3#Caucus. I offered to try to round up and sum up the various arguments that come up at RFA back in February. I did the work ... I read the RFAs and WT:RFA and RFA Review and whatnot ... and decided that we don't do very well in the abstract; we have a much better chance of getting consensus if we tackle one issue at a time, as it comes up in one RFA at a time. One of the issues in Ironhold's RFA is the previous RFAs. It's my guess we can get somewhere useful and avoid some hard feelings and misunderstandings all around, but the clock is ticking on getting it done in time to have an impact on that RFA. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure the number of RfA's is relevant in and of itself. However, the number of RfA's over a given period of time can be regarded as having various meanings. What those meanings are depends entirely on the individual who is campaigning for a victorious RfA election. Five in a month means more than five in a year, or five over three years. Five in a month could probably get you blocked. Five over a year will just annoy the hell out of people. Five over three years gives an opportunity to discern long term behavioral trends. Without context, it isn't necessarily a positive, or a negative indicator. In the case of Ironholds, I think his five are positive because they demonstrate a pattern of growth and improvement, while his most recent three include the relevant behavioral trends worth evaluating him on for improvement. My evaluation, at this time, was that I want to see his improvement continue before I support him. For others, the five RfA's indicate a lust for the mop that warrants an oppose. People who try out for anything five times are probably viewed as equal parts Don Quixote, Kenneth the Page, and Ralph Nader, and I suspect all three of those guys would do just fine as admins, but would end up failing an RfA along the way. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can recall dozens of editors opposing just because an editor may have 4, 5, or even 6 (sometimes more) prior requests. Either way, it won't solve anything Dank55. A consensus to determine how many is too many will not stop opinionated editors. You either make it, or you don't. Synergy 23:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Just to make sure ... I'm not saying "vote for Ironholds before time runs out!" I did support, but I support some of the opposing rationales, too. My call for discussion here is completely about inviting people to do a better job of communicating their rationales, which can be more satisfying for the voter, and can help RFA do what it's supposed to do. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing a piece in the all-one-colour jigsaw of RfA voters here..? Is this a trend we can expect to be continued in the future, or a fad?  GARDEN  23:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^{[context needed]} Skomorokh 23:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at several of the current RfAs. For instance:

• Opposes 7 and 11
• Opposes 1 and 3
• Oppose 20 and the strikeout above it

 GARDEN  23:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd hardly call two users sharing an oppose rationale a trend; have you taken it up with them? Skomorokh 23:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about Hipocrite, but Skinwalker has certainly made opposes based on this specific issue on a lot more than those three RfAs. He took a break from doing it, but he made recall-based opposes on a good number of them a few months ago. ~ mazca ^t|c 00:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen more than one such !vote in a single RfA before. If this is becoming the latest craze, it would be nice to have a statement from a bureaucrat whether such !votes are routinely ignored. Unless they have a deeper motive such as testing a candidate's patience, I think these !votes are disruption to make a point. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm a bit new here but I think it's not fair to oppose either way a candidate answers a question. -download | sign! 03:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now that the prima facie bit is gone, we have to find something... –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why Mazca Skinwalker took a break from opposing based upon that particular rationale undoubtable has to deal with the fact the question was discussed back in August and at Ani Wherein the community loudly decried the practice of asking this question, to quote Dragons Flight, It has a divisive and destructive influence at RFA, since one can't refuse this "voluntary" process without some people assumming you are unfit to lead. The only good that came out of those discussions was how unpopular the question in question is and a general consensus that it should not be asked at RfA's. The question creates a lot of drama because it is unenforceable, and even if it were, is it proper to ask people to commit to a campaign promise during an RfA? Admin recall doesn't work, it is a toothless tiger, and demanding that somebody submit themself to a toothless tiger is a joke. But we went about 6 or 7 months since the question was a "routine" question at RfA's, now it has been reintroduced and is generating the same sort of drama that it had back then. And if history is any indicator, it is only going to get worse the more that question is asked and we are torn into another round of endless arguments about an unenforceable campaign promise blackmail.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've got a "Mazca" in that paragraph where you mean "Skinwalker", I've never opposed based on this. ;) ~ mazca ^t|c 14:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies... fixed.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To respond here, I stopped opposing based on recall when people stopped asking the question. No questionable campaign promise = no oppose. I'm agnostic as to whether or not the question should be asked, and I consider it improper (if not borderline trolling) to ask it myself. Until there is an ironclad, enforceable recall mechanism in place I will continue to view recall pledges as empty campaign promises. I'd also like to point out that an admin's option to renege on recall pledges is specifically noted in policy. Skinwalker (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's test the water and see where we can get with recall. User:Rdsmith4 (Dan) is pursuing an interesting idea of occasionally being part of a recall "contract". That could work, or we might be able to get consensus on some broad proposal, but I think there are several really solid reasons not to go crazy with new recall procedures. We don't have time for it; if there's a fight over taking someone's bit away, that will draw attention away from the RFAs because it's more exciting. The best reason is the Peter Principle, which says that if you're not careful, everyone in an bureaucracy winds in a position they're not competent to fill, because everyone gets promoted until they get to a job they suck at, then they stay in that job. The same applies to groups and processes, like RFA;I got a complaint that I'm rambling. I love complaints btw. RFA has been so successful that some people want to "promote" it to do something it wasn't designed for and would suck at. Even talking about recall during an RFA can suck up time unproductively.

But consider this option, which avoids those problems: suppose after every RFA that fails with a percentage of 65% or more, the crats poll the opposes and neutrals privately after the RFA, and ask them this question: were you pretty sure the candidate is not ready, or was the problem that stuff had happened, especially recently, and you didn't know how to interpret it, and you didn't want to take the risk of getting stuck with a bad admin? If the candidate submits to some kind of recall procedure during a short trial period (maybe a guaranteed second trip to RFA 3 months in the future, or maybe only redo the RFA if there's some kind of recall vote), would that mean you'd be willing to take the chance and switch your vote? if they would be willing to switch their vote if some kind of recall criteria were established for the candidate (probably for a fixed length of time). This wouldn't suck up any extra time at RfA ... in fact, it might save us having to do another RfA 3 months later ... and it would address the most common complaint, which is that lack of recall is raising the bar so high that we're throwing away qualified candidates. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 04:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can always become open to recall after the RfA. Then people cannot oppose you for it. Unless the candidate feels they need to be open to recall in order to pass of course. Chillum 13:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes you can, and I was aware of that when i provided my answer in my RfA linked above. However, i personally would feel uncomfortable effectively gaming the system like that. I wouldn't want a elected politician to avoid a question like that until after he'd been elected, nor would i an admin. --GedUK  13:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But then candidates get opposed because they don't state that they are open to recall. There is no win with those opposes. Garion96 (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a small minority of voters who LOVE recall, for all admins at all times in all cases. A much larger number of people think that recall might be useful in borderline cases. Everyone worries to some extent that when an RFA is in the 60% to 80% range, that there's a chance we're getting it wrong, and putting extra options on the table might reduce the risk that we're discarding a good candidate. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Indeed. If you have two opposing views, then you can't satisfy both, except by not answering, and personally, i would rather make my position clear regardless of the 'political' conequences. --GedUK  14:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would not consider becoming open to recall after becoming an admin to be gaming. Regardless I don't find it a good reason to oppose since every admin has the right to step down for any reason. I do find it a reason not to support though. Regarding the no win situation above, you could always just answer "I have not decided yet", though that may get you opposed by both sides(hee hee). Chillum 14:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I mis explained, or mis-understood. No, becoming open to recall after an RfA is fine, provided that you weren't open to it before but just didn't answer the question. In my opinion, anyway. --GedUK  14:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a though... if any answer to the question will garner opposes... then perhaps it is the question that is the problem and not the answers. Perhaps a better question would be "Do you intend to be responsive to the community and hold yourself accountable for your actions as an admin?". Chillum 14:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thought occurs that anyone who does not intend to "be responsive to the community and hold yourself accountable for your actions" has the wrong website. Those are basic standards we should expect of everyone, +sysop or otherwise. Pedro :  Chat  14:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually express frustration or anxiety about the RFA process, because it might come across as "You're making me feel frustrated, what do you intend to do about it?" That's so ... well, it's not me. But I'm going to risk it now, because there are two things that are frustrating about this thread. The first thing, and maybe this is a harsh way to put it, is: forum shopping. I generally like what I read from ArbCom members, and I think people have a generally good feeling about the new crop that was just elected 3 months ago. If there's a problem with a particular admin, then people generally talk about it ... they rarely stop talking about it ... at ANI and RFCU, and especially at ArbCom. We really can't tackle the problem of problem admins at RFA ... not because we're not capable or interested, but because RFA was never set up to handle that, and because it's already being exhaustively talked about elsewhere. Please take it elsewhere, because all the "Off with their heads! Make them accountable!" talk is distracting from the larger conversation about whether any form of recall might ever be relevant to RFA.

And some say "Hell no!" and some say "Hell yes!", and that's the second thing that's frustrating: the idea that RFA is going to magically morph into what you want it to be if you just repeat yourself often enough, rather than listening and going with the flow. (This isn't a pointed comment directed at any one person; it's an objection to the trend at WT:RFA to repeat the same short points, rather than really listening to people, engaging them, and searching for consensus.) There are lots of minority opinions, but the central and constant question in hard cases is: are we getting it wrong (in either direction), how would we know, and what do we do about it? A significant number of people think that too many people fail, and that part of the reason is a lack of any recall criteria, so that we suffer endlessly if we pass someone who shouldn't pass. A large majority of voters, including me, have a hard time when we see evidence a candidate has "acted up" recently. Was that who they really are, or was it just stress? Sometimes it's impossible to know. That's why I'm proposing [as option 1 ... see option 2 below] that in close contests, where someone fails with 65% to 75%, the crats ask the neutrals and the opposition to indicate (probably privately; it would just chew up more time to have a new discussion) if they want to change their vote on condition that the candidate submit to some kind of recall criteria, probably for a fixed length of time. That way, people wouldn't be forced to rely on their crystal balls in cases where they really can't tell what the future holds for a candidate. We'd have less anxiety among voters, and fewer failed RFAs that we just have to do over in 3 months (if the candidate doesn't give up and leave), and also fewer cases that get wrongly decided in the other direction. For instance, User:Ecoleetage might possibly have passed his RFA (but he was community-banned while the RFA was going on), because there were only a few troubling diffs, and voters (including me) were worried that it would be unfair to fail him for a few "bad days"; as it turned out, we were right to be worried, and I probably would have been willing to oppose in that case if I thought that would have resulted in a short trial period where we could keep a closer eye on him. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. in response to a question: I'm using the word "recall" just to keep all options on the table, because I know people are all over the place with what they want, but one option would simply be to redo the RFA after 3 months after we've had a chance to see the candidate's mop in action ... but only for those candidates where the RFA community honestly had a hard time interpreting the candidate's actions and deciding which way to go; that's why I think polling after the RFA to see if people would actually be willing to change their vote if some kind of fail-safe is put on the table is important. In most cases, people are going to stick with the same vote no matter what, in which case there's no point in talking about recall or a fail-safe 2nd RFA. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC) striking ... opinion is running against this - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to Garden's original question, these kind of opposes have been happening for a long time, they just seem to be more common at certain times than others. I should know as my RfA over a year ago had some (two with one withdrawn), probably because it was just after another controversial incident over AOR. I said in the RfA I was going to be open to recall, when the opposes appeared I confirmed I would still be open to recall, the RfA passed and I am still open to recall now. The drama that was claimed that would materialise by me becoming an admin in AOR has never happened, I plan to keep it that way. I do find it slightly funny that my first RfA nomination for Ged UK has also received similar opposes. I am not worried about them, as they rarely (if ever?) make a difference to a result of an RfA due to their small numbers, and some users do support based on recall as well. I would not object to candidates refusing to answer the recall question in an attempt to the keep RfA about other things (as it should be IMO), though that may not work. I am happy that Ged UK gave an answer either way on the issue, though I respect candidates are not obliged to do what they say in the RfA questions, and if candidates change their mind, they should be free to do so. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got a private response basically saying "never, no forced recall, no reconfirmation RfAs", so let's talk about this option. After some discussion, I agree that it's a better option than what I suggested, but only if we can get people to agree on the parameters, and that's the rub. We don't want the subject of recall to come up during RfAs either in response to badgering the candidate or as a tactic by the candidate to save a failing RfA; if that happens, all that means is that people will generate drama just for the purpose of forcing recall onto the table. The only way it could work would be if candidates walk in the door stating their recall criteria, and there's no discussion allowed of whether different recall criteria would be better. (So it would be a good idea, if possible, to achieve consensus on what criteria are not too burdensome and good enough to satisfy the opposition in closely-fought cases, and if we can find a way to make them binding.) The biggest problem I see is that in every case I can think of where someone failed with over 65% where I think the opposition might have been swayed by recall criteria, none of the candidates were expecting the opposition they got, so they wouldn't have offered recall criteria from the start. To fix that problem, we would need to encourage candidates to ask a variety of people just before they run whether they think recall criteria will be necessary to pass or not. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to the post that started this thread: I think that the previous consensus to not ask the question about recall should be enforced. If it's asked, it should just be removed, as it obviously creates far more drama than it's worth.--Aervanath (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, while there was a clear consensus in August related to this question, and it appears clear to me that feeling still exists, it is not our place to remove good faith questions. We can bring the controversial nature of the question to the person who asked it. But I would need to see a much more concrete declaration to start deleting it. It is often asked by people unfamiliar with the history of AOR or the question at RfA and I would not want to bite somebody over it. (Now, if they continue to ask it when the community has roundly criticized it, that becomes a different story.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, no one has taken it up with me. I have opposed other candidates that used recall as a crutch to get over the fact that they had other issues in their RFA - see here where I moved to neutral from support due to a poor recall promise. Here where I oppose someone for making a recall promise to aleviate concerns. I don't ask candidates to be open to recall, but I do oppose them when they try to convince people to vote for them by promising that if they think they should resign they will resign, and you can have a worthless vote or poll or tic-sheet to try to convince them. Shockingly, everyone is "open to recall," because step N-1 in recall (just before desysoping) is convincing the person who is open to recall they should resign, and thats the only important step. That's the same for everyone on the encyclopedia - including Jimbo. Hipocrite (talk) 13:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I know this is getting old, but here are some updated statistics on the velocity of edits being made to Wikipedia. Have fun! MBisanz ^talk 06:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, we're speeding up, yes? --GedUK  07:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is a graph of the time between equidistant edit milestones. So it is graphing the velocity of the number of edits committed to Wikipedia. It shows we peaked on 4/22/2007 at 212 hours per 2.5M edits and have stabilized at around 270-290 hours per 2.5M edits. If it was speeding up, the graph would go up to the right and a derivation of it's slope would be linear, showing a constant acceleration. Currently our acceleration is zero. MBisanz ^talk 08:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that makes sense. Thanks! --GedUK  08:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that makes perfect sense... Shifts his eyes back and forth suspiciously... Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 10:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said nothing about 'perfect' sense! --GedUK  10:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is our acceleration zero, or is the world just moving faster? Hiberniantears (talk) 12:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could also be that the the world is moving in a different direction. ;) --Izno (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depends who's point of view you're observing from ;) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 19:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I started in our busiest month, 13 days before we peaked (zero growth in edits per day means we are declining in terms of our share of total internet activity). I wonder how much the zero acceleration is because people are finding that wikipedia already has what they were thinking of adding, how much because we've indef blocked so many IP addresses, and my favourite theory - how much because the English wikipedia is losing potential editors to the growing other language wikis? WereSpielChequers 22:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a "D) All of the above" choice? It's likely got a lot to do with the first two (for better or for worse), and probably a bit to do with the third as well. Perhaps this means we can start focusing a bit more on quality, rather than quantity. :) GlassCobra 23:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I suspect that all three apply, though I don't know in what proportions. It would be interesting to know some more statistics - how our page hit growth compares with the rest of the Internet; how the whole of wikipedia across all languages is faring in both page hits and edits against general Internet growth; and how many IP addresses we have indef blocked. Also are there other factors at work in addition to those three? WereSpielChequers 07:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the top of this users contributions:

# 20:25, March 18, 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/OverlordQ 2 ‎ (→Oppose)
# 20:25, March 18, 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ged UK ‎ (→Oppose)
# 20:24, March 18, 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 3 ‎ (→Oppose)
# 20:24, March 18, 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Al Ameer son ‎ (→Oppose)
# 20:24, March 18, 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vivio Testarossa 2 ‎ (→Oppose)
# 20:24, March 18, 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Someguy1221 ‎ (→Oppose)
# 20:22, March 18, 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mentifisto ‎ (→Oppose)
# 20:21, March 18, 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mentifisto ‎ (→Oppose)

All of the votes are the same comment:

Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk)

Should these votes be allowed? I personally think they should be indented, the user is clearly making a point. iMatthew // talk // 01:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, DougsTech seems to be basically a vandal fighter when he's here. Month here, month there - lot's of AIV and reporting User names. Not what I'd call a regular or big content contributor, but I don't see anything wrong either - everyone is entitled to their opinion and !vote. Perhaps he's just not aware of how many admins are not active, and sees a "total" rather than who's actually doing the mopping up. Either way, I don't see a reason to strike a vote, I'm sure whoever closes will take the "whole" picture in perspective. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 02:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honesty only bothers me in a rationale if the honesty itself is a blatant display of bias ("I never vote for Australians"), because that's an open invitation for others to join in the bias. There are a lot of voters who nearly always support, and none who nearly always oppose, so I don't think it does any harm. Maybe DougsTech can be persuaded to tell us why he doesn't want more admins. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with your opinion here, Dan; it's a legitimate opinion to be holding, though it's a shame when worthy candidates suffer because of it. Also, thanks for notifying the subject of this discussion when the original poster didn't have the class. GlassCobra 05:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, glass try to assume good faith, just because the original poster didn't notify the subject of the discussion doesn't mean that the original poster "didn't have the class." He may have forgotten or didn't think about it, it only lacks class if you assume the worse in motives.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spartacus is right, I completely forgot. But thanks for the bad faith accusations Cobra. iMatthew // talk // 10:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respect DougsTech's opinion, of course, but this seems rather WP:POINTy. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pointy and rather lame rationale to oppose someone. Prima facie, anyone? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I was thinking. It's very clear he hasn't even bothered to look at the candidate's qualifications, and for him to go on claiming that he's doing "what the community is looking for" is absolutely preposterous - if the community didn't want more admins, we'd have shut this down or you'd see a lot more opposes. With only one current RfA in the "danger zone" of less than 70%, I don't see how that's at all a justification for this sort of biased commenting. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a legitimate reason to oppose. I don't agree with it, in fact I believe the opposite, but I'm not about to start indenting opinions I don't agree with just because I consider them wrong. Townlake (talk) 05:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although there are many elements that help RfA function ... crats, attentive "regulars", well-wishers, coaches, etc. ... there are two groups that we absolutely can't do without, or RfA collapses in an instant: we have to have a steady supply of suitable candidates, and we have to have people who can oppose convincingly and not come off as dicks. About 75% of what makes RfA work doesn't happen at RfA ... it's the fact that people with dodgy pasts take one look at what happens at RfA and stay far, far away, and that will only continue to happen if there is solid, persuasive opposition on some kind of regular basis. But people rarely come off as brilliant opposition in their first opposes, so I really try to be friendly with new opposers rather than slapping them down. I think the history of RFA supports this approach; opposers tend to write better rationales with time, if given a chance. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 05:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I've learnt in the past few years here is that these people rarely seem as consistent and patient as Kurt was with his prima facie opposing. I suspect this !vote, like many before it, will die out soon enough. Just don't feed him. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 07:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a legitimate, though inaccurate, reason to oppose. If Dougs believes we have too many admins (and he will not be alone in this) then the opportunity is for discussion as to why he believes this. In passing, I've generally felt that it's allways non-admins who seem to think we have too many administrators. Now this is, of course, interesting. It may be an element of self-preservation ("don't de-sysop me - we need more admins") or it may just be that admins look at the backlogs and struggle to agree that we have a surplus of people wielding the tools.... There is a difference, of course, between people with the tools and people using them but that's another thread. Pedro :  Chat  08:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• That's a nonsense reason to oppose (not to mind being downright wrong) and I am sure the bureaucrats will give such !votes the appropriate weight. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It's certainly an assertion for which statistics that can be easily found contradict. However, we've agreed on the open nature of the forum at RFA, about the freedom of comment that accompanies it; so, so be it. As Stifle says, we have the 'crats for a reason and they're wise enough to give DougsTech's remarks the weighting they require. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If supports based on the opinion that there "aren't enough administrators" are counted, why should this not be counted? Not everyone will agree, but it's a legit position to take. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is every opinion that you disagree with IMatthew to be discounted in this way? --Malleus Fatuorum 14:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Point is an abusive of a process. Making the same vote based on a philosophical view cannot be a point. Perhaps it is SOAP, but only so if they have it on their profile too. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can all agree I think the !vote is POINTy and not constructive. I don't think there's any need to indent it, though; the crats are (I hope) intelligent people and will be able to see that these comments don't count for much. (I just noticed Anonymous Dissident saying the same thing above, too.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, we can't all agree with that. And for the love of headcheese, can people stop using "POINT" and linking to WP:POINT, when in fact no disruption is taking place. It's the most overused/wrongly used shortcut on Wikipedia. I have two-thirds a mind to go RfD that bitch. Smiles! Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, stricken and changed "all agree"...my fault for not having read the whole discussion before commenting. Anyway, I still think it's pointy (sorry, can't think of another way to put it)—he's not voting on whether so-and-so would make a good admin, but whether there should be admins at all...and specific people's RfAs aren't really the place to be voting on that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, don't get me wrong. It may be that's he's trying to make or prove a point. However, there is a difference between "making a point" and "making a POINT" (as some people would say). --Ali'i 17:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And another non-POINT point: newbie opposers are the least likely people on Wikipedia to get love, and the people whose absence would make the whole thing collapse in rubble the fastest (assuming they hang around and get smarter and more dedicated to the process). - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, he is not voting on "whether there should be admins at all". If you read what he actually said, you'll see that his position is that there are too many admins, something I happen to agree with. The opposite of "too many" is not "none". --Malleus Fatuorum 17:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, voting on "whether there should be more admins". Better? Now feel free to talk about the substance of something rather than looking for things to nitpick over. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is less about the specifics of this vote (it's not a popular opinion, but it's far from completely delusional); and more about making blanket votes across all active RfAs pushing the same point - while it isn't quite the classic "WP:POINT", it is bordering on being disruptive to get attention for your view. An opinion like "We have too many administrators" the more specific thing that DougsTech seems to be getting at "We should remove old administrators before voting in new ones" is something that should be probably raised on a policy level (whether it's here, or at the village pump, or via an RFC) rather than by making specific votes on RfAs. For better or worse, an RfA kind of needs to be an assessment of an individual candidate's suitability, and I don't think it's very helpful to oppose based on a policy point that particular candidate simply cannot change. ~ mazca ^t|c 18:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much what I was tring to say, only you've worded it better. !votes like this are votes for or against a policy, not for or against a candidate.

I remember during the Arbcom elections there was someone opposing every single candidate with a rationale like "Arbcom is a farce and needs to be gotten rid of." Does anyone remember if a consensus was reached about that person's voting? It might be relevant here as well. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the other non-RFA edits concern me, such as issuing a 4im vandalism warning for an edit that really doesn't look like much of vandalism, let alone the need for a 4im warning. MuZemike 19:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DougsTech got blocked 72 hours once in August 8, 2008 by User:Hersfold for "repeated abuse of scripts and circumvention of preventative action". I'm not sure what constitutes as "abuse of scripts" but issuing 4im looks like it's along the same line (except this one is abuse of templates). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bureaucrats aren't stupid, and when Doug is the only user opposing a certain editor, or even if he isn't, they won't take his comments into consideration, considering all of its rebuttals. If you're still concerned, perhaps the Bureaucrat's Noticeboard is a better place to discuss it than here. Jd027^talk 20:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that only works on the assumption that the comments made by him are invalid. Commenting at RfA isn't like a private members bill; you don't need to get a certain number of "per" votes for your comment to be considered valid. Ironholds (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that the bureaucrats weight comments appropriately, the key word being appropriately, and that even though he can oppose on any merry grounds he likes, in practice, his comments aren't going to make or break anyone's RfA. Jd027^talk 20:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. People that oppose my vote do not seem to really be opposing what I am saying, but rather how I am saying it. Remember, it is not your job to decide consensus (unless you are a bureaucrat.) --DougsTech (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, for the record, I oppose both the way you're carrying out your vote, and your reasoning behind it, but it's still your choice to make that vote. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid Dougs I am "opposing" what you are saying, not the way you are saying it. Perhaps you can bring this conversation back on track by demonstrating exactly why there are "too many administrators". Evidence would give more weight to your comments. Pedro :  Chat  22:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too many admins. You as an admin should know how to find this. You should also read what I have typed above and in various places. DougsTech (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]