This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
After considering User:Ed Poor's RfA, I was wondering...
Is it possible that there are a few people who just wouldn't pass an RfA, based on "hearsay, gossip, rumour, and legend"?
I'm not "going to bat" for EP specifically. This is more a general question. I'm also thinking about a few other RfA examples. And there have even been a couple RfBs that might qualify.
This isn't to say that each of these people may or may not be justifiably opposed.
But considering that the system allows "me too", and "per so-n-so", it makes it rather difficult to see past, to discover if it's actually merely: "I heard they was bad, cos' somebody told me once."
I'm a big fan of WP:AGF, but when I look, and look again, I think it's fair to at least philosophically wonder.
One problem could be that there really is no appeals process to RfA. And maybe there shouldn't be, I dunno. Maybe if you've got a "bad rep" for whatever reason you shouldn't ever be trusted with the tools. Except that my recollection is that it shouldn't be that way.
To turn this on its head, consider NYB's RfArbcom. Does anyone seriously think even 10% of the commentors checked NYB's contribs? Probably not. And, again, they technically don't have to.
And I've heard accusations in the past of RfA being a "popularity contest", and points from both sides are fairly taken. But as Wikipedia continues to grow, I do wonder if the "larger" turnouts may mean that the process is leaning more towards popularity than actual reasoned (much less researched) choice.
I'd be interested in others thoughts. (Though I'll note again, this really isn't about EP. His RfA just caused me to start thinking about this.) - jc37 07:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I think (saying this as someone who hasn't been editing all that long in the big scheme of things) that in the past, when Wikipedia was smaller in terms of membership, it was certainly easier to get to a consensus decision. A larger number of voices makes getting to consensus more difficult. Maybe that's why we've gone from a quick request for adminship, which was almost Request for Rollback style, to a seven day vote. And let's not kid ourselves here: if we're always talking about the percentages ("only X% support") then it's a vote. As soon as it's a vote, it's a democracy, and suddenly people don't need to justify their view because they feel they have an absolute right to make drive-by assessments. Alas, the fact that RfA is now a vote automatically renders it a popularity contest. Those are my thoughts, anyway Fritzpoll (talk) 07:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
High profile RfA naturally attract more editors to partake in the discussion. "High profile" can be interpreted as "well known", or an editor with a laundry list history of Wiki-drama. It's inevitable that there are some candidates that the community (if we believe in consensus) sees unfit to be an administrator with or without prejudice. Wisdom89(T / C) 07:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
That sounds about right, for better or for worse. GaryKing (talk) 07:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec)You're a late comer... almost everybody agrees that the process is broken. The example that I've given before. You have a candidate who is a decent candidate. Starts out, and within the first 20 !votes somebody comes along and gives a critical stance on why the candidate shouldn't pass an RfA. The candidate will likely go down in flames. Same candidate, same person comes along, gives the exact same reasons why the candidate shouldn't pass an RfA. The only difference is that rather than being one of the first 20 !voters, the candidate has already received 20 supports. The opposer might as well not !vote as the candidate will probably pass.
The other problem with this is that there are really very few people who actually do their homework on candidates. I'd say that 75% of the people who !vote don't even check out the users talk page. 90% probably don't go past the users talk page. And less than 5% of the reviewers spend more than 20 minutes per candidate before !voting. When you have this depth of investigation into potential admins, then you are going to get wreckless !votes based upon limited input. (I'd suspect that less than 10% of the people who participate in RfA's bother to check this page.)---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon 07:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I would say it is inaccurate to say "almost everyone agrees that the process is broken". If that were true then why do attempts to reform this system get rejected in favor of the existing system time and time again? Clearly a significant number of people don't think it is broken. Chillum 14:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is that it's simply easier to oppose and feign diligence by agreeing with solid/weak reasons already given. And, let's face it people, there are a fair amount of editors who are stringent at RfA, thus they look for reasons to oppose rather than support, and if it's already laid out for them, there you go. Wisdom89(T / C) 07:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
(e/c)I think that a strong part of that is the fact that RfA is a vote, and not a consensus discussion. The lack of investigation is sadly correct, which extends to not reading the RfA page at times. Quite a few times, I've seen RfAs where a concern was legitimately raised, explained, and the explanation accepted by the editor who raised it. By that time, 5 votes have been garnered "per above concerns", and even after the explanation has been accepted, this type of vote continues. The reason why it is clearly a vote is that if these votes knock a candidate below 75%, even thought they are essentially invalid, the 'crat will likely close it as unsuccessful. I think though, that the best example of what you're saying is the support vote I read recently where the editor said essentially "looks good, but I'll wait and see what others say, and I may change my mind" Fritzpoll (talk) 07:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
What you describe is also prevalent within the neutral stance. Very rarely do I see editors who place themselves on the proverbial fence actually return to change their mind after more discussion has passed. Wisdom89(T / C) 07:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
(smile) I've said that myself. Though it's because I believe in the theory of "many eyes", with the belief (hope) that if I've "missed something", someone else will hopefully "catch" it. That and since adminship also involves "social interaction", I think it helps seeing what others feel (if possible). - jc37 07:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
It may not apply to you, but it suggests to me that some editors are taking a viewpoint without investigating someone's contributions on their own. It is, of course, perfectly fine to change vote if someone raises a point that you yourself have missed, but with some editors (not you, imo) it says to me that there is a lot of sheep-type following in these votes. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I understand, and don't necessarily disagree. (To use myself (a bit) as an example, my first RfA had a bit of that at the start.)
Perhaps it stems from the thought of "editors are welcome to contribute to Wikipedia at any "depth" they wish". If they don't want to do the research, and wish to trust another, technically that's allowed in this process. But if it starts to get "out of control", at what point is the process itself biting, by the pile-ons of "me too"? I dunno. - jc37 08:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Yep, that's fine in a consensus-based discussion, but not when each opinion is separately counted as an individual opinion and afforded equal weight. I'm not saying some editors are more important: but if you did some research and found 3 or 4 reasons that a candidate should be opposed, but three or four editors supported "per nom", why should your view only be "counted" once as happens now. Not sure if what I've written makes sense, but let me know! Fritzpoll (talk) 08:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I believe I understand. And "weighing" comments would indeed seem to be something within consensus. However, RfA is (as we know) a mixture of consensus and voting, with probably more of a leaning towards voting. I once suggested that the "support" section be removed, in order to foster more discussion. (Sounded like at least a decent idea at the time : ) - jc37 08:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
(e/c)Absolutely agree - but if RfA were a discussion about the editor, where a simple poll of people supporting a viewpoint didn't matter, such participation for the sake of participation would still happen, but have less weight. I guess I know that you guys think the process is broken (from bman's comments), but I think the first step to change is to realise what process we have at this moment in time. Whilst we delude ourselves that RfA involves !votes, and ignore that we have a supermajority-based democracy, we won't see a driver for change. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
In that vein, why don't we just tell the 'crats that we want them to ignore !votes? (I don't use the word because that's what they are, for the record, I use it because it's what they're supposed ot be) One with faulty reasoning, "Per X"s where X has changed his stance, etc. And maybe even weight ones with good rationales higher, so that a support with good reason is worth more than a single !vote. Doubt it'd have consensus to pass, but it's an idea I've been toying with for a while. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 11:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
(Serious comment.) OK, let's try that. What votes would you propose we have 'crats ignore or give less weight too? And what arguments do you have with which to convince the 'crats, by virtue of showing a consensus amongst the community, that these votes should be ignored or given less weight? (Yes, this is a serious comment. I don't think cynically whining about RfA is going to help fix it, so if I'm going to comment here I may as well try and make it suck less.) —Giggy 12:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, heh, I haven't quite worked one out yet. It's just been kinda' an idea. But at least I can see ignoring "Per X" !votes when "X" has changed stance (from support to neutral, oppose to support, etc.) as being relatively easy for everyone to deal with. A little bit of that kinda' !vote !counting goes on at AfD these days, where "Per X"s are only as valid as "X" is. Of course, it'd be bad to and I'm completely against writing up objective standards for this; 'crats are smart people, they can judge each situation on its own basis. As for up-weighting !votes, I haven't come up with any good criteria that I like, but I'm (very) open to ideas for it. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 15:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
(To giggy) I guess what could be done instead is to ask crats to abandon the 80% / 75% rule and get them to weigh comments instead. True consensus forming - then the pile-on "per XXX" comments will be less weighted. I thought that's what 'crats were for, rather than vote-counters... Fritzpoll (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I have some ideas forming, but I'm still processing through the answers to WP:RREV/Q in order to generate the report on thoughts at WP:RREV/R. It's taking some time to complete before we'll start having solid proposals appear, but I do have some ideas on how to tweak things that will probably make things better for all concerned with minimal additional effort and without dissenfranchising sections of the community. GazimoffWriteRead 12:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I bet everybody's mind was made up about Ed Poor when they read that he was a sysop on conservapedia. The rest is just rationalisation. To be fair, I would oppose as well, based on what I've seen him say on Conservapedia, on Wikipedia, and so on; but I've refused to vote simply because I fear that it is not those problems that I object to, rather his participation on that website. — Werdna • talk 10:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Not me, I actually wanted to support originally and only changed my vote from neutral to oppose when more recent problems have been pointed out.
Regarding the RfA process in general, I may be in the minority, but I don't think the process is as broken as people here seem to think. Looking at all the unsuccessful RfAs for the last two weeks or so, I don't see a single case where in my view the candidate should have passed (OK, I do see a couple of close calls), and among those that did pass everybody basically did deserve to pass. The main real problem I see is that some people are so traumatized by their negative experience in the RfA that they either never run again or withdraw from the project altogether. That is really regrettable and a serious problem.
I think, however, that as WP community is getting much larger and much more complex, the de facto standards for RfA are becoming more stringent, and adminship is becoming a much bigger deal than before. While there are some negative aspects to this, it is an unavoidable fact so it is necessary to learn to deal with it.
Looking back at the unsuccessful RfA from the last two weeks, I think that a great many of them did not succeed because the candidate was nominated too soon and was not yet ready. In many instances it was probably the fault of the nominators who pushed their nominees to run too early or without sufficient preparation. Maybe it actually makes sense to introduce some minimal time/edit requirements (e.g. a minimum of 9 months of having a registered account and a minimum of 1000 of mainspace edits, or something like that) before a user is eligible for an RfA. We do have some such requirements for being able to vote in a WMF board of trustees elections, so there is precedent. Similarly, maybe some minimal requirements (in terms of the length of the account and maybe the number of edits) could be used for eligibility in RfA voting (say 2 months of having an account and at least 200 edits total, or some such requirement). I also think that a pre-RfA consultation with a bureaucrat should be mandatory before an RfA could run, even for people who are not self-noms; an informed third opinion is always a good idea and it is frequently the case that the nom is a close friend who may have a bit of a blind spot regarding the candidate's weaknesses. I am not saying that a positive recommendation from a crat should actually be required before running, but a consultation at least, yes.
On some other matters raised here. Yes, RfA has a strong element of being a popularity contest. There are certainly some negative aspects to this, but again, it is unavoidable and better than the alternative. Unlike AfDs and other content discussions where ordinary consensus (rather than essentially straight vote counting) is required, an adminship is a position of trust. So an election-type approach is much more appropriate here (same as with the WMF board and with ArbCom) than an AfD type approach. Nsk92 (talk) 12:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
A short answer is: Yes, it is very possible to create a reputation for one's self that precludes the likelihood of ever passing an RfA. Is this reputation sometimes unfairly gained? Yes, but that is true in any human circle, we try to avoid it. There is always the option of retiring one's old account and starting again. Chillum 14:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Why not say what you mean? "There is always the option of lying about one's past." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
There is no rule that says you can't close an account in good standing and start another one. It does not require "lying" as you put it. Chillum 21:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Not "lying" per se, but still. If someone "fails" rfa (or more specifically IMO, RFA fails them), and they start over, editing where they prefer to edit, it is only a matter of time and nosiness before someone comes along with an SSP or RFCU report. Then what? Are you saying you'll support said user in an RFA as someone that "retired an old account because it failed an RFA (or two), made a clean start, got "caught", and is now reapplying for RFA? Seriously Chillum? Keeperǀ76 21:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I stand by the word "lying". There are lies of commission, and lies of omission. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Who are the "grandfathered" administrators?
User:Ed Poor, in his current {{Rfa}}, states that even though he is a former administrator who was de-sys-opped this was his first candidacy. He said he was created an administrator less formally, prior to the institution of {{rfa}}s. I have only interacted with one administrator who I know to date back to the early pre-{{rfa}} period.
I found that other early administrator to be a massively uncivil.
I am curious as to how many currently active administrators date back to the period when there was no formal community review. Is there a list of these early administrators?
Has anyone suggested that all the remaining original administrators who date back to this period have some kind of performance review now?
P.S. As I wrote above, about the sockpuppet User:Freestylefrappe slipping through the {{rfa}} process, I think {{rfa}}s are flawed, and in need of reform. But it seems more accountable than an informal appointment.
There was a significant amount of community review back in the early days. Community was small so doing so was fairly easy.Geni 18:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. So, there have been some improvements since 2006, but merely minor cosmetic ones. Geo Swan (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
There is one admin with less than 50 edits, lets see who can find it. Chillum 21:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Mostly people involved in the technical side way back. Today they would probably be called devs.Geni 21:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I've said before and will say again: examples like User:Archtransit and User:Freestylefrappe are red herrings. These cases do not represent a failure of the RFA system, but rather an inherent vulnerability in our community. Archtransit would have passed any possible system for requesting adminship (unless we presumed guilt and preemptively checkusered all candidates, and even then I'm not sure how obvious his socking was--even if we established a minimum time limit such as no applications with less than a year of activity, it would only deter, not prevent, and would be extremely unpopular) or had psychic powers. Archtransit made nothing but good edits for 6 months prior to becoming an admin, he was genuinely helpful at DYK, and even wrote a difficult Featured Article. (Whether it should be easier to desysop--and I think it should--is a separate issue.) Same thing with Freestylefrappe. If no possible change to RFA can fix a problem, then the problem is not with RFA. --JayHenry (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
They're not red herrings, they're examples of a deeper malaise that too many want to sweep under the carpet. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
It is a very deeper problem, humans like to fool each other. But that is way beyond Wikipedia. Not much we can do to stop the truly clever from spending a year gaining trust, then deciding to betray us. We are dealing with humans, so that is something we need to deal with. Chillum 23:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I definitely agree that they're examples of a deeper malaise. By saying it's possibly inherent, I don't mean to sweep it under the rug, but short of having registered identities I'm not completely sure what possibly could have stopped Archie. Definitely none of the RFA reform proposals that I've ever seen. --JayHenry (talk) 00:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The Archtransit case wasn't really so much about stopping anything; many were deceived and supported the RfA. I haven't checked, but I may even have done so myself. The lesson that ought to be learned from that episode though is what happened afterwards, in the farcical recall, during which many who ought to have known better were pleading for leniency, another chance, mentoring ... anything to avoid facing up to what ought to have been done immediately. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Probably preemptive checkusering, but that has already been discussed and tossed. bibliomaniac15 00:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
We should encourage cases like Archtransit? What damage did he do? Half an hour or so of unnecessary admin work. What good did he do? Six months of solid contributions, and a featured article. Net positive, as they say in this part of Wikipedia. If we force the trolls to do six months of good work before they get their kicks, we've won. In fact, let's make it an official process! Any troll who's written a featured article gets sysop access, no questions asked. After ten minutes, we block them indef and desysop them. Rinse, lather and repeat. — Werdna • talk 09:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey, don't know how serious you are, but as one of the admins who actually did much of the work shooting Archtransit down, I can tell you that the amount of time wasted was much more than half an hour. It was massive stress for a whole lot of people. Fut.Perf.☼ 09:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm with Fur.Perf on this one. It took much more than 30 minutes to see Archtransit for what he really was; in fact it took some emotion draining RfCs and arbitration cases, so then not only are we still processing that user for the damage they've done but we may also lose other users (something you haven't really considered above) who feel that the system has let them down. Rudget (logs) 10:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
All the more reason to have an established system. That way, we don't need to figure out who's there to troll and who's there to contribute. And no, I'm not being particularly serious. — Werdna • talk 13:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Heya. I'm "User:Infrogmation", one of them ancient "grandfathered" admins. Back in the day, I was editing Wikipedia, and was bitten by a radioactive spider, and woke up with admin powers! :-) Well, seriously, back in the early days when one could still check out ALL the changes made in the previous day in less than an hour, I was writing and improving articles and reverting vandals, and suddenly a "revert" button appeared on my toolbar, and I figured out I'd been given admin status without asking for it. Yep. -- Ol' granpa Infrogmation (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Preemptively watchlisting RFAs
I have reviewed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shalom Yechiel, and in the process of evaluating what happened, I decided to review my previous RFAs and other community involvement since I began editing here. I will be posting a very long communication to RFA participants in the next few days. Be prepared for a few surprises.
Meanwhile, I want to discuss an issue that bothers me when I ponder it. I will first examine myself, as by criticizing my own state of mind, I can understand other people's flaws as similar to my own. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RMHED 2 is failing right now. I could have voted there to pile on, but it's unnecessary. I nominated page history revisions of User talk:SlimVirgin at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 8. I didn't count all the votes precisely because some are difficult to pigeonhole as simply "keep deleted" or "restore," but in rough terms, about 10 users supported my request to undelete, and about 15 preferred to maintain the status quo. RMHED closes the DRV and writes: "Deletion endorsed, as there certainly isn't anything like a consensus to undelete. ... I'm not an admin but I've closed it anyways, given that it's been open 6 days and the last comment was over 42 hrs ago." I observe that RMHED, a non-admin, closed a DRV in which about ten users recommended an admin action (undeletion) should be done. I consider that this violates the "non-admin closure" policy. I am particularly aware of this policy because I violated it several times during 2007 before finally committing to follow the rules after someone challenged my RFD speedy closes at ANI. However, I have already caused wikidrama by nominating SlimVirgin's talk page for undeletion, and I do not wish to increase the drama by asking an admin to review the non-admin closure. I checked to see if RMHED had requested adminship before, and I noticed he had, at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RMHED, and people opposed him there for inappropriate non-admin closures. I make a mental note to myself that if RMHED ever applies for adminship, I will oppose because he made a non-admin closure on a DRV I nominated.
I do not use my watchlist. In order to keep track of community affairs, I habitually check high-profile pages such as RFA and AN and RFAR and Centralized Discussion; there's usually something new there since the last time I checked. So I waited for RMHED to apply for adminship, and when I saw his RFA (shortly after I withdrew my own RFA), I immediately thought: "Oppose!" Then I checked the score (it was about 14/34/3 at the time) and said to myself: "Never mind, it's getting snowed anyway." Still, the experience taught me about an ugly side of myself that I need to work on.
If it were just me, I would say, "Fine. I have a problem, but other people don't share this problem." However, I have reviewed my RFAs and discovered that people preemptively watchlisted them or otherwise opposed my RFAs without first bringing their concerns to my attention before the RFA. Let me begin in the beginning. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/YechielMan was passing at (8/0/1) when User:Vary opposed based largely on a Googlebomb I had planted 15 months earlier when I was literally a new editor in my first 12 edits ever. Vary has edited only three RFAs in her entire history: hers, mine, and Jersyko's. She did not have any interaction with me. What happened is this: she discovered one of the inappropriate external links, inquired about it from an uninvolved user, and learned that it was vandalism. She then proceeded to remove inappropriate links from seven or eight articles in which I had placed them. She did not leave a vandalism warning. (Generally, Vary left vandalism warnings for a minority of her reverts.) Fifteen months later, she remembered the YechielMan username who had added the Googlebomb links, and she opposed my RFA largely because of the Googlebomb. (After she knew about the Googlebomb, she found other reasons to amplify her opposition.) Now I don't really object to the fact that she didn't warn me for adding bad external links. It would have been nice for me, since I was a new user, to be guided on the right path, but I can live without it. It bothers me that, although she did not warn me, she did bother to remember my indiscretion and torpedo my RFA fifteen months later. I'm not saying I deserved to pass that RFA, but I think the manner in which she handled this situation begs for improvement. Specifically, if she was that opposed to me passing RFA, why couldn't she have told me there was a problem before I applied for RFA? If my vandalism was that bad that it disqualified me for RFA, why didn't she warn me when I did it? I know these are unanswerable questions, but bear with me.
In my third RFA in November 2007, Kathryn NicDhana wrote (oppose number 4): "I was so disturbed by the findings in his last RfA that I saved diffs and watchlisted this page. He was so very determined to be an admin, so I knew this would come up." I would like to ask Kathryn, though she is no longer active here: if you were so opposed to me applying at RFA that you preemptively watchlisted the RFA page, why didn't you just leave me a nice note on my talk page at some point and say, "Hey Yechiel, I'd advise you not to apply for RFA again because if you do, I'll oppose." That might have led to a productive discussion instead of the anguish of a failed RFA. (I didn't seriously expect that RFA to succeed, but I thought it was worth trying.) I find Kathryn's secretive tactics a little troubling. Why didn't she speak openly with me about a problem she knew about? Why did she have to wait for me to apply for RFA before she could trip me up?
I am bothered by the strategic gamesmanship that people engage in to torpedo other people's RFAs by preemptively watchlisting the RFAs without telling them. Conversely, I would argue, if you intend to support someone's future RFA, instead of just preemptively watchlisting it, offer to nominate them! If we communicate better with one another, we can remove a lot of the anguish and shock from the RFA experience.
I request from all of you: if you have someone else's RFA waiting on your watchlist, or otherwise you are thinking, "If User:Example ever applies for RFA, I will support/oppose him," go tell that user what you think of him or her. Communicate openly with him or her. Don't save your secrets until the best opportunity to pounce. It causes unnecessary emotional pain, and in the end, a lot of the anger you will see from me in the next few days could have been avoided if people had spoken more clearly to me up front rather than waiting for my RFA to tell me what they really thought about me. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I have quite a lot of people on my mental hitlist to oppose if they ever bother running an RfA, and I would never presume to turn up at their talk page telling them what I think of them without my opinion being asked for. And you know, thinking about it, I don't want people turning up at my talkpage telling me that I'm a blithering idiot or that they don't like x, y, z, a, b, c, (insert long list of diffs here) edits I did. I like living in my state of blissful ignorance about myself. When someone runs an RfA they're inviting scrutiny. Outside of RfA I don't think it's as appropriate, unless the thing you're bringing up is significant. I don't think that the whole Googlebomb thing you did would have been solved by her bringing it up on your talk page. It was a pretty egregrious thing to have done. The examples you mention aren't, to me, evidence of secretive behaviour. Sometimes when someone does something that I think is really stupid or nasty or whatever then that's just it, no amount of nice talk page messages isn't going to cut it, that person just sucks. I guess most other people would feel the same. There's redemption and there's... I don't know, something else. I wouldn't bother going to their talkpage and hassling them about it some time later, especially if they've already rectified it. Sometimes people do things that are so stupid or so mean that even when they say sorry later they're still not going to be trusted properly for a long while. If something can be fixed by just making a nice talk page note then it's probably not something that people would bother opposing for in an RfA anyway. So yeah. I hope this makes sense, it's wayy too early in the morning here :/ Naerii 06:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I agree with that, to be honest, although I may be speaking from experience. If I did something shortsighted, stupid or inappropriate, I would hope someone would tell me about it. I know I'm far from perfect and that one of the best ways for me to improve is from learning where I've made a mistake or error of judgement. After all, if I don't know, how can I do anything about it? While I agree that there are certain actions that take time to reedem oneself from, storing up midemeanours on the offchance that a person contemplates standing for a position of responsibility at some time in the future is, I think, the wrong approach. Instead, I think it's better to at least try and broach the subject with the editor, as it may either shed light on their reasoning or improve their understanding of policies and guidelines, something which will hopefully make them a better editor in the long term, irrespective of what they do. GazimoffWriteRead 08:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreeing with both sides a bit, I think Yechiel is correct when he asks for editors to warn newbies who make mistakes. Sometimes there is really a lack of communication here which then leads to the annoyance experienced to be used in a RFA for example. But I must admit that I have a mental hitlist myself of some people I don't want to see as admins but if they are nominated, I would not oppose solely because of that. If a user made mistakes a year ago and I only know those mistakes, I might easily be biased. But I can read up on their work since then and can judge from that. But that's only my way of doing it and it's only human to hold a grudge and not be easily persuaded to let it go. And those participating in RFA are only humans and thus they will have human flaws. I do not think your essay above, while interesting and honest, will bring any change to that. So#Why 09:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Naerii, you contradicted yourself. You wrote: "Outside of RfA I don't think it's as appropriate, unless the thing you're bringing up is significant." Isn't that the whole point?? If something is significant enough to oppose an RFA for, it should be significant enough to discuss with the user. I'm not saying I'd "discuss" the problems with Dorftrottel/Everyme, to give an example: I think he has no intention of trying RFA anytime soon, and he's working on the other problems without my assistance. But if you the user is a serious threat to try RFA, yes, I still think you should stop them before they throw themselves to the wolves. The more I think about it, the more upset I am becoming about Kathryn's statement that "I was so disturbed by the findings in his last RfA that I saved diffs and watchlisted this page." Is this okay? Well, I understand why she did not want me to become an admin, but instead of humiliating me in public view, she could have come to me privately. What she said about me falls in the category of "significant." I will add that on User:Shalom Yechiel/Drafts and archives/RFA review#YechielMan responds, which I wrote partly in response to her at that time, I stated that I intended to try RFA in about November 2007, which is what I did, and she did not respond to that. It's possible she didn't read it, but I wasn't trying to keep my RFA ambitions a secret on my end. Yechiel (Shalom) 13:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd certainly like people to tell me about any mistakes I make. That is part of a reason for taking part in admin coaching. A (good) admin coach (like mine!) regularly checks ones contribs and gives one tips etc. I was happy to find out that my admin coach instructs me about my shortcomings. = ) --Cameron* 13:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't restrict it to admin coaches because it's the essence of coaching to tell the coached user about such things. But I think it should be in the spirit of Wikipedia that everyone tells everyone else when they made a mistake and hadn't realized themselves. It would allow us all to become better editors :-) So#Why 13:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, in general I think there's something to be said for both sides of this argument. In situations where someone makes a mistake based on a policy misunderstanding, I will almost always drop them a message to let them know, and hopefully sort any problems out straight away. Assuming they learned from the mistake, I would never plan on opposing a future RfA based on it. Conversely, if someone is just being a WP:DICK, I'm unlikely to specifically call them on it then, and if they ran for RfA in the future I might well oppose based on it. The difference is pretty much in terms of intent, as far as I'm concerned. ~ mazcat | c 14:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure when I run my RfA next year, there will be people who have decided NOW to oppose me. My only hope is that they grow up. This will always be the case. Beam 14:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
That'll win them over. Tanǀ39 14:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
"Now" as in "With this comment I just made"? Because as Tan points out, implying them to be childish might not be very helpful^^ So#Why 14:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Lol, true. However by the end of next year I will have fucking dazzled (to be sure) so many that their voice of dissension will be crushed. :D Beam 14:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, I view intent to crush dissenters as prima facie evidence of satanic possession. ~ mazcat | c 14:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
That really wasn't necessary; could you please strike it? --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 15:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
By all means. I'm honestly mortified if it can be taken as offensive, it was meant as a lighthearted joke response. ~ mazcat | c 17:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Not offensive, but Kurt gets enough bashing as is and there's no need for it. Thanks. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The whole notion of preemptively watchlisting an RFA seems rather vindictive to me. I will readily admit that there are a few users - very few - whose nominations I would oppose on sight, unless some very compelling evidence of reformation was given. That said, I have not, and would not, preemptively watchlist any future RFA attempts. What is the point? To think that I have some kind of "magic bullet" tucked away, a secret weapon that will hopelessly destroy their attempt is silly. If the user has done something so horrendous as to immediately disqualify them from passing, it is the sort of thing that should be readily evident and someone will bring it up anyway. Keeping their RFA on watchlist just to make sure that one has the opportunity to chime in and lodge their own little "haha, not in a million years!" opposition just seems vengeful and spiteful. Shereth 15:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
That pretty well summarizes my thoughts, and in many fewer words. Thanks, Shereth. Yechiel (Shalom) 15:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Just a thought, but at least sometimes people preemptively watch RFAs to support the candidate rather than oppose. I haven't seen anyone chime in with that yet. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 15:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The only RfAs I have watchlisted I think are ones I intend to support. I think this discussion has also missed the possibility that a future opposer has notified the user of their displeasure over an action and was blown off or otherwise did not feel the matter was successfully resolved. Would it then also be "vindictive" to watchlist a future RfA for that person? Karanacs (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, because the implication is still there that the user is "out for revenge", ie. "You blew me off, now I'm going to make absolutely certain that I can oppose you in any future RfA attempt". The proper thing to do is just let it go. If you spot the user's name while checking in on RfA in the future and memories of what happened surface, then by all means bring it up in an opposition, but preemptively watchlisting just to make sure you can lodge your complaint seems unnecessarily rooted in the spirit of "getting back at someone". Shereth 16:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The implication should be us WP:AGFing, and assuming that the person pre-emptivley watchlisting it to Oppose isn't doing it out of revenge. Maybe they saw alot of negative activity that they weren't involved in around WP:ANI, and have kept that in mind. Jumpin' Jeepers, people, not everybody that plans to Oppose an RfA is a jackass. :-/ --Koji†Dude(C) 16:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Eh, my whole point, really, is to say that there is little justifiable need to make sure that you can oppose someone - why would it ever be that important to make certain that one gets to lodge an opposition? In my mind, there is a distinct difference between "I will oppose if I ever see this guy at RfA" and "I am going to make sure I can oppose this RfA by preemptively watchlisting it". In any case, this entire discussion is academic because no one is really proposing (nor would it be technically feasible) to prohibit the watchlisting of nominations. Shereth 16:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
If you honestly think a person would make a bad admin, by all means watchlist the RfA page so as not to miss it(we don't need anymore bad admins). If your out for revenge, then please don't. Chillum 16:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
One week is sufficiently long for me to spot and oppose "shoot on sight" RfAs. I don't maintain a watchlist and unlikely so unless the length of RfAs are ever cut in half. - Mailer Diablo 16:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
How we choose to keep track of RfAs is a personal preference. The only issue here should be if such an action is taken in bad faith. Chillum 16:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The situation shouldn't be as bad as you'd imagined. Currently, unsubstantiated bad faith oppositions (particularly the first few on the line) are very quickly taken to task. We also have cases of grievances against the candidate by editors that are substantiated. Even though it may be in bad faith, it does not necessarily mean that the evidence or diffs against the candidate is any less worthy if viewed from the perspective of an uninvolved party. - Mailer Diablo 17:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
For the record, Yechiel, I did not preemptively watchlist your RFA. I can't now remember how exactly I came across it, but I recognized your username and took a look. I didn't 'torpedo' it, either. I opposed it. Having your edit history scrutinized is part of the RFA process. So I brought up something that concerned me - that I didn't think you had spent enough time as a constructive editor to prove that you wanted the tools for the good of the project, rather than for some more mischief making, (an impression that was, frankly, compounded by the fact that you hadn't owned up to those problems in your nomination statement).
And as for why I didn't warn you: when I removed those links, I had been editing off and on for all of about two months and only had somewhere around 400 edits under my belt. I, like you, was a n00b. If I'd come across that googlebomb a few months later, yes, you would have gotten a warning, but it's not as though I had some sort of wicked plan to lie in wait for months on the off chance that you would stand for RFA so I could swoop in and dash all your hopes. I haven't participated in any of your RFA's since, but I do stand by my oppose in your first one. At that time, in my opinion, you really had not done enough to prove that you had moved past intentionally damaging the project.
Not such an unanswerable question after all, is it? -- Vary | Talk 02:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Pro-active watchlisting to counter the most dedicated vandals
There are vandals so dedicated they will make ten thousand edits in order to earn the trust required be entrusted with administrator authority.
I spent my first two years on the wikipedia without ever participating in an {{rfa}}. About two years ago I had a very unpleasant interaction with a wikipedian named User:KI. He had unilaterally renamed an article from an unbiased title, to a biased one. I called him on it. He complained about me on WP:ANI. He begged for administrators to "keep an eye" on me.
I saw that he had nominated himself as a candidate for adminstrator four days later because his talk page was still on my watch list.
I looked at his nomination. His answer to the standard question, "do you have any unresolved conflicts" was that he did not. I called him on this -- how could he tell people he had no unresolved conflicts when he had an unresolved conflict with me that was just four days old?
The guidelines for applying for being an administrator advise candidates that those with whom they have left conflicts unresolved are fully entitled to bring those unresolved conflicts up, on their candidacy page. The guidelines recommended that candidates seek out those with whom they left conflicts unresolved, prior to becoming candidates, and try to resolve them.
While I do try to civilly raise my concerns with some other contributors I don't think it is my responsibility to spell out on the talk page of every contributor I think has shown questionable judgment; questionable commitment to civility; questionable understanding of the wikipedia's policies, why I would oppose them becoming an administrator. I think the guideline is pretty clear. Candidates have the responsibility to resolve their unresolved conflicts first, or they have to be prepared to defend their records.
User:KI's second attempt to become an adminstrator failed. What I was very shocked to learn, a month later, was that he was a sockpuppet. That the puppetmaster had been entrusted with administrator authority under the wiki-id User:freestylefrappe, and had subsequently had that authority stripped from him.
It seemed to me one of the lessons to draw from the four candidacy discussions of this sockpuppet was that the process by which we vet administrators was then in desperate need of reform. In all four of those discussions many participants said (paraphrasing): "Your contribution history only has one or two thousand edits. I'd be happy to endorse your candidacy in a couple of months, when you have more experience."
Checking the number of edits a candidate has made, and randomly checking some of the most recent edits is simply an insufficient test of whether a candidate has the integrity and judgment to merit being entrusted with administrator authority.
Sorry, but any of you potential candidates for administrator, who have made what you now regard as mistakes before you reached your current understanding of the wikipedia's policies, remain accountable for your previous statements and actions. You have a different understanding now? Fine. Be prepared to explain that.
If I had an unpleasant interaction a year or two ago with a new contributor, who had now nominated themselves for adminstrator, and who honestly owned up to not understanding the wikipedia's policies when they first arrived, who laid out their current understanding, where they went wrong, and committed themselves to an exercise of their authority that complied with policy, and whose recent editing supported their claim that they were now compliant, I would not hold their early non-compliance against them.
But, if they tried to bury or obfuscate an early history of non-compliance I would not want them entrusted with administrator authority.
One of the lessons of User:KI / User:Freestylefrappe is that there are some vandals who are prepared to make ten thousand policy-compliant edits in order to win the trust required to be authorized to act as wikipedia administrators.
Given the demonstrable existence of vandals this dedicated I would ask what is wrong with pro-actively watchlisting the candidacy pages of non-administrators whose judgment or behavior one finds particularly troubling. I presume no one object to pro-actively watchlisting the candidacy pages of those whose candidacy one would endorse?
I wasn't going to comment to your comment but I will. I was a little bit like that, didn't have a clue about Wikipedia's policies back in November 2006. I uploaded copy-vio's, created sockpuppets, etc. I was blocked indeffed in April 2007 for legally threatening an admin. I retracted it in July 2007, and since then on the most half I've kept clean as such. I wouldn't call myself a vandal, I have 13,000 contributions. If anybody now, called me a vandal I'd feel in a sense unhappy that I was being described in that way. I've had four RFA's (my recent one withdrawn last week), doesn't mean I want so much to be an admin, but I would like to be an admin. I think the fear is that if past vandals get the took the first thing they do with the tools would be delete the main pages, or any other high target pages for that matter. If you have a RFA watchlisted for the future to support, fair enough. However, if you have a RFA watchlisted to pile on oppose to lay into the user, to make the user look like one of the worst candidates ever without looking at the more recent picture, that's where trouble begins. My honesty in my RFA effectively led to pile on opposes because of things that occured last year which in my view is unfair. People should look at all the contributions, taking into account the good-faith contributions made. D.M.N. (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Just a minor point, and a bit off topic, but we can't delete the main page anymore. They instituted a thingy a while back that prevents it. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
You keep stating that it is because of your honesty now that people opposed your application. I think you'll find that it's very easy to find out about your past via all of your past RfAs. As someone who vehemently opposed your application, I will offer you a breakdown of my thought process.
Your past is pretty bad, but at the same time it wasn't all to do with not knowing Wikipedia policies. It was mostly due to you flying off the handle when you were told something you didn't want to hear and then vandalising several pages. Your temper is a problem and there is still evidence of it when one looks at some of your contributions, particularly to pages such as WP:ANI. This on its own worries me.
You seem desperate for adminship. You went through admin coaching and sometimes only participated in a process after it was suggested by the coach. Admin coaching is something I am not particularly in full agreement with anyway, but you come across as wanting to be an admin for the status and power that the position holds rather than a genuine desire to improve the encyclopedia. Whilst not being a perfect editor myself, my reason for being here because I support the Wikipedia ideal and want to help contribute my time and knowledge. It's not necessary for me to be an admin - there are many admins very capable of doing the admin tasks - so I don't seek adminship. If someone nominated me then I'd consider it; if the community decided that they felt I should be entrusted with the mop then I would feel duty bound to at the very least consider it.
Don't give up. I think it's fantastic that you are improving but at the same time there is enough to worry me. It's a fundamental of my thought process that when regarding people seeking positions of power, one bad thing should outweigh one good thing. For example, if a politican seeking re-election had given the working class a big tax break but had also withdrawn funding from hospitals then in my mind at least, the withdrawing of funds is the biggest issue that would sway my opinion. Even ignoring your past, their are still issues which make me uncomfortable. As a result of your past, I do check on you from time to time to make sure that you are still behaving well and causing no further disruption. However, when I saw you had put up an RfA, I exercised my democratic right to voice my opinion and I hope you can understand why. You have come on in leaps and bounds but I cannot trust you with the tools. I am more than happy for you to continue contributing to Wikipedia in the manner that you have been doing as of late. Readro (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
D.M.N., I'll be blunt with you. You have no chance to become an administrator ever. My experience roughly parallels yours, although I think some of the things you did (e.g. legal threats) were worse than what I did. I have learned that I will never become an administrator under this username no matter what I do. I am 25 years old, and I may live to 75, and still I won't be able to erase the fact that my second edit ever was a Googlebomb. It's just life. Deal with it.
If you want to consider starting over with a new name, I won't say it's so terrible, but you need to make sure of a few things:
Don't make substantive edits to any pages you edited from your old username. It requires a lot of self-restraint. The easiest way to detect a reincarnation of a retired user is to see the new user editing the same pages.
Make sure your conduct is absolutely impeccable. If you cannot be absolutely certain that you will not vandalize, edit war, make personal attacks, or otherwise get in trouble, you should not start over under a new name.
If you do those things, and if you somehow pass RFA, you're in good shape. I don't think you will actually manage to follow all three guidelines perfectly. I am in a similar situation, and I am not sure I can follow them myself.
Also, if you retire suddenly, people may checkuser you to see if you've started a new account. I will be relocating later this summer, so I can avoid that, but you probably can't.
I may learn about what happened with Freestylefrappe, but broadly speaking, if KI hadn't behaved like a jerk and somehow passed RFA, who would know the difference? How do we know that there isn't a disgraced user who made a clean start and passed RFA? It happened before (with Archtransit), and it will probably happen again. Until Wikipedia institutes a real-name policy, there is no foolproof way to prevent this. But if you want to go that route, you need to be very careful. Yechiel (Shalom) 21:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think creating more socks is exactly the best way to go. I think that if D.M.N. keeps his nose up, demonstrates need for the tools, and allows more time to pass between RfAs and from his evil deeds, he has a good chance of getting adminship. I'd vote for him. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll hold back on saying some things here, but basically, you're wrong. It's been tried and failed many times. If you don't think it's totally honest to start over with a new account, I have two answers for you: (1) WP:SOCK#Clean start under a new name - it's allowed; and (2) I tried it the "honest" way and this is what I got in return. Yechiel (Shalom) 01:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Time heals all wounds, Shalom. If D.M.N waits long enough and doesn't get into any trouble for a while, he could eventually redeem himself and pass a request. It can be difficult to regain the trust of the community, but again, it's just a matter of time. —Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 02:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Is it possible for a disruptive user to reform? Yes. It's also true that some will always hold the past against him. It's imperative that we look at each case on its own and be fair. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Former Admins at RFA and Templating
Noting that, despite being a former admin, Ed Poor's RFA only used the {{usercheck}} template, I put together a new template at {{formeradmincheck}}, which takes everything under Usercheck and adds Rights, Blocks, Protects, Deletes, and Moves. I included moves because it is included under the {{admin}} template, and rights because admins now grant rollback permission, which is logged as a right (other rights being granted by 'crats). I'd like to add an instruction for former admins who transclude a new RFA to swap the usercheck template for the new template (if there's consensus!), but I'm not sure where to add such an instruction. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate would seem logical, but I'm not sure how to shoehorn this in. Thoughts? UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence 20:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I think you suggestion makes complete sense - it would be wise and diligent to be able to peruse the actions of a past administrator. Wisdom89(T / C) 20:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) for the very few-and-far-between times that we would need this template, I think it is both useful and essential. Nice work, UEZZ. Keeperǀ76 20:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I would like to think that this template will get more and more use, as more and more incompetent administrators are brought to book. I am of course dreaming though. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
And i'm hoping it doesn't; the majority of administrators are good users, and wouldn't have been appointed otherwise. Cases like this are few and far between, not because adminship is one big sausagefest but because the majority of admins do good work. On the topic of good work; Nice template UEZZ :). Ironholds 21:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Well that and that most admins tend to be towards the edge of burnout when they get de-admined so leave shortly afterwards.Geni 21:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Not in a bad way though, this is entirely helpful and probably optional. - Icewedge (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
And would be utilized minimally as I see it. Wisdom89(T / C) 21:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
If it is optional and minimal used there is no point in writing the instruction.Geni 22:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, personally I would view it as minimal, not optional. Wisdom89(T / C) 22:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
So former admins when putting together their RFA's have to worry about yet another bit of procedure. Instruction creep at it's finest.Geni 22:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, what would be so difficult about adding the template? Wisdom89(T / C) 22:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The effect is cumulative. A small thing here a small thing there it all adds up. The question is not "would this be useful" the question is can we do without it and we can.Geni 23:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Mmh, while I think a quick way to track those information down may be a good idea, I think in the usual scenario it will only allow more prejudice to happen. Taking the "Ed Poor"-case as an example I do not think the admin actions of a user who wasn't an admin for two years or so should be a major point to consider. All RFAs are about users, no matter their past and to distinguish between different users (for example by using different templates and thus different criteria) might not be very helpful. Imho it might make prejudice-based responses more likely because most people will not bother to use the same criteria they would use on users who never were admins. So#Why 23:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
You do make me laugh. How many times have you seen a candidate at RfA opposed because they have no admin experience? Yet here we have a candidate who has loads of admin experience that the administrator community wants to hide. Anyone ever heard of the word consistency? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
There's a huge difference between the implied no admin experience vs admin experience, and the actual no admin experience vs proven history of inability to handle admin powers. Hard to be consistent between massively different situations. ~ mazcat | c 00:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Apparently hard for some to be consistent fullstop. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
But it isn't the same situation. Again taking ed poor as an example; the admin actions he cocked up on were two years ago. Opposing someone based on actions taking when previously an admin, say 2-3 years ago, is saying you disagree with them as they were then, which isn't what you're being asked to judge. Ironholds 01:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
From what I can see on the RfA page, a great number of the opposes are due to recent actions at Conservapedia and not as much due to his old administrator actions, however bad they may have been. —Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 02:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
<- What got me thinking on this issue was the idea that, well, I wasn't around when Ed was an admin - nor were a lot of editors. So, how was he as an admin, really? My main concern when adding the links (which were initially the {{bureaucrat2}} template) was avoiding a string of "Arbcom says you suck as an admin, so oppose" opposes. I thought it prudent to judge on the merits. Those who are interested would dig up the logs anyway, and those who aren't... aren't. I didn't mean for this thread to be anything other than a "should we stick a link to this template somewhere" thread. Thanks for the kudos, btw - much appreciated. UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence 02:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
This template seems somewhat useless. In what situation is somone's former admin acts going to be recent enough to be taken into consideration? If they're from about 3 months ago (which is a reasonable reason to look them over) there's no way the community would want the guy to be re-sysopped so fast. If they're from about 12 months ago, then they're too old to be relevant.--KojiDude(C) 03:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I may be out of date on policy, but can't a former admin just request the mop back from a 'crat still? If that's still the case, and if you put yourself through RfA again, then I think anything in your history since your passed RfA is fair game, and presenting it as such it entirely within the bounds of fair play. If you abandon or lose the mop, it is because you messed up, or could not handle the pressure of... wait for it... a page on the internet. A weekend on the beach is all I ever need to get over myself. Ask the 'Crat and spare the drama, otherwise, deal with all the drama, which is the reason you should ask the 'Crat in the first place... unless that has changed, in which case... I sheepishly back slowly out of the room. Hiberniantears (talk) 04:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
If you are desysopped in "controversial circumstances" (e.g. by ArbCom) then you must go through an RfA (unless the committee requires a direct application to itself). Avruch T 05:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
In this case, the admin was "fired". If the admin resigns uncontroversially, the current practice is that the crat is inclined to return the mop without going through RfA again if he/she asks for it. Unless of course, he/she chooses to undergo RfA under his/her own will (we have a few of these, and many are successful). For resignations under controversial circumstances, former admins must undergo RfA again. - Mailer Diablo 05:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I've actually moved this template to {{Admincheck}}, since it fills the same function for current admins making Requests for Bureaucratship. FYI, UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence 15:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Perfect. Now if only the Colts didn't suck, you'd be all set. :) Beam 03:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NonvocalScream2
Resolved
– WP:IAR for the sake of lethargy--KojiDude(C) 04:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
It's actually at the correct title; see WP:RFA/N for proof. —Giggy 03:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
According to that, "When you do the second nomination for yourself or the person add |# (number of the nomination) or space # (number of the nomination) after the name", so using a space then the number could also be considered correct. And, to answer my own, uh, question, no, there are no RFAs from 2008 listed in the archives (successful or unsuccessful) that don't use the spacing convention. Useight (talk) 03:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:RFA/N states that "To create a second nomination, simply put the number 2, separated by a space, after the candidate's username", but I guess this is not a problem if other RFA's have been doing this and no one has complained so I guess we can consider this thread resolved? - Icewedge (talk) 03:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
My point was that the other RFAs that used this style (without the space) were from a long time ago. All the recent ones use a space before the number. Useight (talk) 04:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry guys, my mistake; it used to distinctly say follow it by a 2 without a space (or so I recall) but it seems to have changed. Don't mind me :-) —Giggy 04:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Having worked our RFA archives at User:MBisanz/RFAlist2 you really don't want to know how much variation there is in RFA names, I'd say its to the point that there is almost no prevalent usage. MBisanztalk 04:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it matters to much, though with some user names with a number on the end it can look really strange if a space is not used. For example, if I had a second RfA under my old user name, Camaron1, it would be at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Camaron12, and even with the space it would still look a little odd. Camaron | Chris(talk) 09:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Come on guys, this was just unfriendly. We have a good faith new user who obviously doesn't understand what RfA is about, and he get's a very rough ride indeed. Try and help new users, dont bite them. I just fail to see how comments such as "Recommend telling it like it is. This a joke, right?", "Oppose - Not now. Too green." or "Endorse NOTNOW closure." are constructive whatsoever. They don't help the newbie candidate one bit. Please please try and offer advice about where they might like to edit - they probably haven't heard of AfD or DYK - point these out to them, at least it encourages them by opening the door to areas that admins work in. Sorry for the rant, but I sometimes get the impression that no thought goes into the feelings of new users and we concentrate on "looking good" by making "funny" remarks. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I know you didn't reference my oppose, but I did drop by their talk page with some very brief advice. I would've been more verbose if he had more than 3 edits this year comprising of making that RFA. For what it's worth, I'm not sure that suggesting Huggle to him was a good idea, since he'd most certainly get denied at WP:RFR at the present time. –xeno (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, your was the only one that actually told the candidate why you were opposing. Perhaps huggle was the wrong tool to use, but I think you get my general idea - we should make suggestions to these guys, not shoot them down. He probably just stumbled across adminship for the first time and decided to log back in. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with any edits to this RfA. That's great you took the time to explain things to him, Ryan, but that doesn't make the rest of us assholes. Tanǀ39 18:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
<Insert comment about everyone being an asshole> Beam 18:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Didn't call you an asshole - I just want you to be a little more considerate. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, not all of us consider these things little baby birds in the front yard that we need to cradle tenderly. While MF's "joke" thing might be kinda borderline, if someone isn't going to take the time to do any research into anything and just toss their name into the ring, I don't see anything wrong with a couple of us saying, "Not now". And I meant it, it's great you took the time to give him the 411 on things. I don't see why you need to chastise the couple of us who just wanted to close a SNOW RfA. Tanǀ39 18:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
If they bother you that much, there's no need to comment on them. It's an ideal opportunity to give new users the once over about how we work - show them different paths they might like to take. If I'd have got those responses on an Rfa when I was new, I'd probably have thought "sod it" and walked away. We shouldn't expect new users to know what adminship, or an RfA, entails. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm against being BITEy just as much as the next guy, but there is going to be a minimal level of "realism" when a candidate so totally unaware makes an attempt like this. Also, I'm not sure we sure assume the most constructive thing would be start going off about what areas to work in to start considering adminship. A little dose of realism might be better. I found the RFA comments virtually harmless. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
We can give subtle hints about where to help out, they don't have to be adminship related - I chose to do that, but others could point to portals or images, places which could use some help. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
"We shouldn't expect new users to know what adminship, or an RfA, entails." This is our fundamental difference in this conversation, I guess. If someone is going to know enough to be able to form and transclude an RfA, I do expect them to know what adminship and RfA entails. However, I'm over this and I don't really want any ill will around here, so I'll consider being more gentle next time, or, probably, not commenting in the RfA at all. Tanǀ39 18:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I closed the RfA since it seemed little chance that it was going to succeed, since the editor in question, as Xenocidic points out, has around 40 edits. I do wish comments were made to RfA that were constructive that pointed out potential areas where the candidate could improve. I'm sure if I had gone up for RfA at that tenure of experience I'd wished to be given pointers of where to help and how to improve. Of course, we have no real grasp of whether the candidate really does wish to contribute over a long period of time and potentially become an administrator in the future, but until we have that clarification, we should given those who put themselves up for RfA a little nudge in the right direction. Rudget 18:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
But guys... what is the continued idea of us telling him how they can improve? He looks like he was doing just fine for a guy who had 40 edits. The major/only error he made was taking no consideration of a process like RfA and throwing himself into a high-traffic area when he shouldn't have. I totally disagree with this parlaying into established community members now telling him areas he should go edit. He should simply be told, in a nice a way as possible, to please read how things work before doing them, and he should edit wikipedia in whatever way is natural to him, not as a result of a botched RfA attempt. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
There are ways to go about telling him to read how things work - I don't think this RfA was the right way at all. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Gwynand, of course we can't start promoting elusive ideals if there is no potential for them to occur; we're not here to waste our time. As I say 'little nudges' is all he needs, the user should have followed the links on his talkpage (which he did for the first edits) but didn't. With this eye-opener he should be more acceptable of process and what it entails. Rudget 18:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Come on, man. This is just going to be a big debate over opinions. Some people think we should shower n00bs in praise, guidance, and comfort. Others feel they need a blast of realism to get the point. No policy enforces/limits us to one or the other, and none of us have any authority to tell each other that "we concentrate on "looking good" by making "funny" remarks". My suggestion would be to shut up before this section gets to be like the one above.--KojiDude(C) 18:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
What Koji said. Archive this before it gets stupider. Keeperǀ76 18:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
More positively...
I've dropped the user an encouraging note. I'd be happy to do this every time there's a NOTNOW closure. Leave me a message on my talk page if I don't notice. --Dweller (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
{{NUMBEROFADMINS}}2 ~ {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}
Not sure if anyone else has noticed and noted this already, but currently, the number of articles is roughly the number of admins squared: We have 6835469 articles, 856 admins, and 7985 articles per admin. user:Everyme 06:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I would like it there, but don't know if it should be called Everyme's law or Soxred93's law. ;)Soxπed93(blag) 19:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I've added it, feel free to adjust. user:Everyme 08:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
What that statistic tells me is we apparently have exactly one admin too many. Who's up against the wall first? :) ~ mazcat | c 11:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it's more like ~0.39 too many. I'm sure you didn't need that arm anyway.... naerii 11:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Very interesting. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, according to the graph, the real relationship seems to be closer to linear: from mid-2003 to late 2006 (where the graph ends), we've always had 1000–1500 articles per admin, even though the number of admins and the number of articles have both grown about 10-fold in that time. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
What significance does the ratio of administrators to articles have? None that I can see. The ration of administrators to active editors, perhaps. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Anyways, recently there have more bots than before that create new articles at blazing-fast speeds, which helps in the number-of-articles department. GaryKing (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Why have these questions suddenly started being asked? I've seen that question appear on more than one RfA now. Isn't it an invasion of people's privacy? People who do want their age revealing, do so on their own userpage. Those who don't do that may not want to bring that to public attention. What matters is how mature a candidate is on the inside, not a set age. And we can tell the internal maturity of a candidate by the way he / she edits and interacts with others, more often than not. Lradrama 14:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I certainly agree with should not be asking about private information unrelated to being an admin. Asking one's age is about as personal as asking where one lives, or what kind of diet they have. Anyone running for RfA has a track record to stand on, and asking questions that can only lead to judgment beyond ones ability as an admin is pointless, and a little rude. I encourage all people to answer the age question with "That is not a polite question". Chillum 14:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, we cannot stop people from asking them. We can only try to convince them that it does not matter, but I think some will argue against that. I doubt voicing your concerns here will have much of an effect, why don't you bring it up with the users who ask those questions? Maybe they have a good reason, who knows? So#Why 14:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Still, anyone opposing for the reason "Didn't tell me their age" should probably discounted. It is unreasonable to expect a candidate to give up such private information to become an admin. Chillum 14:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I thought I'd let the community voice their opinion as a whole, in a place which is suitable to do so, rather than on someone's RfA. Lradrama 14:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, lets try to settle this. Frankly I don't see how it is any more an appropriate question than "Where do you live?" "What color is your hair?" "What is your gender?" and the like. These are not things related to being an admin, and it is nobodies business. Chillum 14:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Simply asking is not an invasion of privacy. No matter how uncomfortable some are with using age as a factor in RfAs, it's not as if there can be some decree telling people not to consider age or discuss it. If some people don't care about age, that's fine, but they still need to accept the fact that others do. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, the questions are optional and so if the candidate is bothered by revealing their age then they don't have to answer the question. Readro (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
"How old are you?" is not the same as "You must disclose your age if you ever want to become an admin". Naerii 14:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree the question, while rude, is not a terrible thing to ask. However, if somebody opposes based on a refusal to give up private information such as age/sex/location then that should be discounted. Chillum 14:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Thing is, some people, under the pressure of running an RfA, may feel obliged to answer the question to the point, and while sorting out those with gumption and intuition, it is still an unecessary question that can put many people off. Lradrama 14:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Indeed, that is why I am a little wary of letting people ask questions that they have no reasonable right to an answer. Question 19: Age/Sex/Location? Chillum 14:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the reason for asking seems to be people thinking "well, if he/she is too young, it means they're obviously not mature enough to be admins". Regardless of asking a question, opposing on those grounds is utterly ridiculous. Maturity and age have the same sort of link as IQ and genetics; yes, age is a contributing factor to maturity, but it isn't the only or even the main factor. There are a lot of 14-15 year olds who act far more mature than their age would suggest, and a lot of 20+ year olds who act like small children. Unfortunately, a few users (i'm not going to name names) tar all young(er) users with the same brush, and since massive cock-ups are far more visible than good work, people tend to assume that "if you are as young as insert-user-here, you will make the same mistakes as insert-user-here". Ironholds 14:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I do not think the closing 'crat will let his judgement of consensus, if it's really not clear, be influenced by a oppose like "too young". So I think we can agree that it's up to the candidates to answer optional questions and up to the voters to judge whether to base their decision on those answers or the lack of them. And it's up to the closing 'crat to know how to handle such opposes. So#Why 14:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
A 'crat has previously clarified that they do not discount opposes on the basis of age. Naerii 14:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd prefer the questions (if they must be asked) be worded more like "What is your age range?" I would never reveal my exact age on the Internet. –xeno (talk) 14:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I still don't think age is relevant to adminship. As I said, we can tell how suitable a candidate is (maturity-wise) from how they interact with others, and how constructive their edits are. What we don't need happening is some new restriction on RfAs along the lines of you must be over 18 to run for RfA, because that will be going too far. I know it seems a bit presumptive, but this age question has been asked once, and seems to be getting repeated to the extent that people are more willing to take it more seriously. Lradrama 14:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Quite frankly, I agree, I was just noting that asking someone's exact age is even more improper than asking one's age range. –xeno (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
What if you trust Christian people more than other religions, can you then ask the person their religion? No of course we would not allow that, we would not even consider it. Yes I know we are all allowed our own standards, but it is expected these standards be rational and not based of pre-conceived notions about social groups. I would gladly support a 12 year old with a great track record, whereas many adults are jackasses. Chillum 14:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Not sure it's that simple. Sometimes people are bending over backwards trying to figure out what is wrong with the candidate's maturity... "what can we do to help this guy pass 3 months from now?", or think simply telling them to "act more mature" is a solution to issues. The fact of the matter is, the answer just might be the fact that the candidate is 10 or 12 or 14 years old and nothing but time will help some of the issues preventing adminship. The flat out "How old are you" question, I agree is problematic, but the underlying notion has some validity. In some cases, we need to stop going crazy as a community over analyzing a candidate's faults and occasionally admit that the natural progression of time is what is actually holding them back. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
If a candidate wishes to preserve the privacy of his real-world identity, he should not have to reveal his age. There are lots of possible questions which might satisfy the questioner's curiosity or allow him to vote based on his prejudices, but which really do not reflect of fitness to be an administrator. This question is right up there with "What is your race?" "What is your address and telephone number?" "Do you support Barack Obama?" or "Do you accept Jesus as your personal saviour?". The candidate should have the right to politely refuse to answer, along the grounds of "I choose not to answer a question which invades my privacy" and if the questioner cites the non-answer as part of his reason for voting against, that vote should be deducted from the total and ignored. Edison (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
If these questions are to be a regular occurence, then it may be wise to include a note on exactly what you have said in the introduction to running an RfA? Lradrama 14:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
It has long been agreed that admins do not need to give up private information about themselves, so any oppose based on that would be contrary to the community spirit in this matter. Can we all agree that if somebody opposed because a person would not give up private information about themselves that this should not be a valid oppose? Chillum 14:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
That's not what this thread was about, and no one has argued against what you are defending. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
But this is not established at all. For example it has been said "A 'crat has previously clarified that they do not discount opposes on the basis of age", I am attempting to get the communities opinion on this idea. Chillum 15:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Why not just ask the person who is asking people these questions to include a note that a response is not required? As if this wasn't already obvious. Naerii 14:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, considering that it's an "optional" question (yeah, we all know what that means), technically they wouldn't have to answer it anyway. Sounds kind of like some instruction creep. If an RFA ends up in the gray area, I believe we can trust the judgement of the bureaucrats to weigh consensus. Useight (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, if the community wanted to, we could stop people from asking. We could create a policy that Wikipedia does not discriminate against age, gender or race. Kingturtle (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but that would only stop de jure discrimination based on age, not de facto if it existed. My RfA passed only a few days after I turned 17, but no one there asked me my age... I suppose if someone had, I woulda just responded "Old enough to know that generally, it's impolite to ask such a question." Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
It's still quite a good idea. You can never get rid ot de facto discrimination. I would support such a motion...--Cameron* 15:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
And anyway, that's not how so-called "policies" on Wikipedia work. You don't "make rules" beforehand; rather, you observe a pattern of X happening in response to Y, with the general support of the community, and you write up the "policy" after the fact to describe what's going on. Kurt Weber (GoColts!) 15:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Although I don't like questions like these, I will defend the right of someone to ask them. People should be allowed to ask any question they like; equally, people have the right to dislike any question posed. In my opinion, a question that has the intention of discriminating will make the poser look bad, not the prospective admin. Censorship is not the way forward. Readro (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I certainly support a policy against discrimination based on age, sex, or religion. I would think this is a given. Chillum 15:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't. Kurt Weber (GoColts!) 15:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
This archive might be instructive to anyone who wants to understand why I (and others) have a problem with adolescents being community servants. Kurt Weber (GoColts!) 15:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I've been thinking a lot on how to respond to this topic, as there's no real right or wrong answer. I can appreciate that we should respect a user's right to privacy, but I also appreciate Kurt's extensive experience of working with young people. Since my own childhood was once described as hideously non-standard, I don't think I can rely on that as a frame of reference either. But the big question that constantly comes back is maturity. Firstly, do we think that a candidate will behave maturely when applying sanctions on other users, and seccondly do we think that a candidate will react maturely when criticised, sometimes unfairly? In response to that, I would ask if a number or value will truly give us an answer to that question, or if it requires a body of evidence from previous contributions in order to be meaningful. More than that though, do we as a community have a responsibility to young people who contribute to the project? Administrators can come in for levels of criticism and abuse that would potentially have profound effects on a young person's development. Are we comfortable that we've assessed the level of risk of that happening and accept it in order to provide young people with development opportunities within the project? Or do we decide that the risk is not acceptable and restrict the opportunities for young participants in the project, proecting them from that risk? Is there another way of looking at this? it's a community call, and one the community needs to be happy with. Gazimoff(mentor/review) 16:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
If a person has maturity problems that will be reflected in their contributions. If the contributions don't show a maturity problem then to assume there is one due to a person's age is really unfair. Chillum 16:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that these don't often show up until it's too late. Yes, ideally we would all be making decisions based on the individual candidate and not on an age cutoff. But in the real world, we don't have all the information we need to be able to make these kinds of decisions, which is why at some point we have to make at least some presumptions based on general tendencies, unless we have ridiculously strong evidence to the contrary. Kurt Weber (GoColts!) 16:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I have to say I agree with Kurt on this one. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 16:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Also definitely agree with Kurt here. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Kurt, how old are you anyway Kurt? Beam 17:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Chillum here. This is about wikipedia and contributions to the project. Maturity is reflected in the editing. This has nothing to do with real world situations. Whens the last time you located a sockpuppet outside of wikipedia? Or had to decided whether to block someone based on policy? Much of this is non real world oriented and is case/project specific. Rfa is the area where we are assuming good faith by default and not basing or making possibly wrong presumptions about another users off wiki status. Especially when its irrelevant. Who cares how old a user is? The effectiveness of the editor is what I care about, not their age. Synergy 17:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I think you missed my meaning there. In the real world, we generally don't know every little bit of information about someone that is relevant to making a decision such as this. Wikipedia exists in the real world (rather than, say, some fantasy world where we do know every little bit of relevant information about someone). Therefore, on Wikipedia we generally don't know every little bit of information about someone that is relevant to making a decision such as this. In such cases, we have to make presumptions based on general tendencies. Kurt Weber (GoColts!) 17:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it would help if you gave me an example. Other than reviewing their contributions, what else would you need to know about a candidate before accepting their request? I honestly do not need to know anything more about a candidate other than their work (such as how they contribute, how they communicate, etc). Synergy 17:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
General tendencies? Nope, I judge people based on their track record and how they handle themselves. I don't ask myself what the general performance history is for X age, or Y gender or Z occupation. I would even go so far as to say that most good admins will show a maturity beyond the their demographic's average. Chillum 17:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
In fact you're making a decision on how the candidate has contributed, and has communicated, from which you are extrapolating how you think they will contribute and will communicate in the future as an administrator. There is no reason at all to ignore other available evidence in that extrapolation, such as the candidate's age. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
That's nice...except it's mostly meaningless. There's a big difference between being a disinterested third party arguing for or against a block, or a deletion, etc., and being the one who actually shoulders the responsibility of pushing the button--and being the one who will be the primary target of the blowback that your actions (however legitimate and proper they may be) will bring if they piss someone off enough. No amount of "past contributions" can provide a perfect demonstration of how someone will react in these situations. Kurt Weber (GoColts!) 18:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) There's a pretty good correlation between age and maturity, but a candidate's actual contributions and behaviour should always be considered. To say that it's okay to judge a candidate based on age alone is crazy. To say that age must be ignored when evaluating a candidate is insane. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
And that brings it back to what I was originally getting at. If RfA participants rely more and more on the real-life age / "qualifications" of a candidate, rather than the maturity they have displayed on Wikipedia, then it just wouldn't be fair. Lradrama 17:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Come on, seriously. Adminship on Wikipedia is not a job. We don't need a CV, resume, or a degree in decision-making to be a good administrator here. Likewise, the age of an RfA candidate shouldn't be taken into account when casting a vote at an RfA, at all. As corny as it sounds, we've got to pretend we're all equal. I mean, what next, opposing somebody because they don't have a GCSE in a certain subject? Let's stop this now, before it blows even wider out of proportion. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 17:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
You are perfectly at liberty not to take a candidate's age into account. What you are not at liberty to do is to lay down the law about what factors others may choose to take into account. Live with it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Rather than laying down some kind of policy for RfA's (which would be pointless, everyone has his or her own standards) lets just generally trust 'crats to cut through BS support/oppose reasons when closing. They've run the gauntlet twice (once for admin, once for 'crat) so I think they know what they're doing by now. Ironholds 18:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I was not demanding others do as I say, far from it, I was merely putting my ideas into the fray. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I just meant it as a general comment; apologies if you took it as a dig. Ironholds 18:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I think WBOSITG was responding to Malleus, not you, Ironholds. GlassCobra 18:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm with Ironholds on this. People should feel able to use any and all available information to come to a decision about a candidate. If they want to make a support or oppose which is prejudiced, unreasonable, unjustified or just stupid, that is their right. If others want to call them out on such a poor rationale, that is their right.
What I don't want to see is "#Oppose Candidate has demonstrated immaturity. Based on their age I suggest they not re-apply for six months to a year." being followed up by ":#ZOMG you used age, you are ageist and that is wrong, crats please ignore this!" (unless the crats take the ideal meaning of that "this", heh :-) SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
'Crats are supposed to be smart people, and completely vetted (I'm not saying they aren't, by the way), so why don't we just let them exercise the authority we've given them? They're smart people. If a !vote is bogus, they'll ignore it. If it isn't bogus, they won't. Pretty simple, eh? Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
True dat. I do trust the 'crats to do a decent job. I just don't want to see RfA policy / guidelines / instructions that lead to misunderstandings and drama. RfA is traumatic enough as it is. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Nobody is saying that you should not be able to oppose due to lack of maturity. One thing I am trying to get across is that knowing a persons age will not tell you how mature they are, but reviewing how they have acted and reacted will. Chillum 18:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Except, as I explained above, I don't think that's the case. At the very best, it's unreliable and incomplete. Kurt Weber (GoColts!) 18:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
My Drive By Two Cents - (I seem to be driving by more often lately... however that has nothing to do with what I'm about to type) I feel worried if someone who is of a legally untouchable age is promoted to adminship. It, quite simply, for me anyway, comes down to... if the shit hits the fan, can this kid be held legally responsible? And that answer is no. At least not in the US. Dunno about the rest of the countries out there. Anywhoo. I dont have issues with maturity. I was pretty mature at 15, but then again, I'd done alot of things that "kids" really shouldnt be doing (and I think were illegal at my age, come to think of it). My issue lies solely with legality. Qb | your 2 cents 19:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Queerbubbles above and this is what I am getting at. A candidates race, religion, politics, etc, will not alter their legal accountability. Their age might. Having under-18s edit Wikipedia is bad enough, but handing them the mop? It should never be allowed due to the above argument involving faeces colliding with rudimentary air circulation equipment! George The Dragon (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I am not attacking individual editors. But there needs to be a safety net. Wikipedia has had self-confessed paedophiles, stalkers who have been locked up for stalking admins, bestiality defenders, etc, etc. It's not a very safe place for minors, at times - and the project is far different now to when it started. I should also stress I am not alone in my views, and that has been made apparent time and time again. Kurt, as usual, has hit the nail bang on the head George The Dragon (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
There are many admins here who are relatively young, but they do a fine job. Your comment that was having under 18s edit Wikipedia is bad enough, but handing them the mop?. Might I just say that I was only 16 when I started editing Wikipedia, 17 when I got handed the mop, and have I damaged Wikipedia in any way? Myself, and any other admins / users who are 18 and under have done extremely good jobs on Wikipedia, and we have got where we are through sheer hard work. Lradrama 20:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
So I started editing Wikipedia when I was 15, got the mop at 17, have over thirty featured lists, two featured articles, three featured topics, and whatnot, and I'm not welcome here? Thanks a bunch. sephiroth bcr(converse) 20:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I know ^ ...charming! Lradrama 20:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Any user who hasn't come across the perennial "age argument" must be too busy writing articles to read the pointless tosh we hack out here. Which, it must be said, is clearly a good thing! How's a bout scrapping everything but article and article:talk. We'd be back on the track we once were! George The Dragon (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I guess I should chime in; I started editing at 15, became an admin at 16, and involved myself with potentially dangerous blocks since then (I'm 18 now, so technically all this argument about minors doesn't apply to me anymore). Has Wikipedia collapsed? No, of course not. Now to the point; does age matter? Yes, it does, to a certain extent. There are certain areas that minors should avoid, especially when they veer into legal trouble, and for those who are young, age is and should be a factor in determining adminship. Should we disallow minors to be admins based solely on age? No, of course not. To reject otherwise perfectly capable candidates solely because their parents didn't conceive them earlier is antithetical to what Wikipedia stands for. —Kurykh 20:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
"Antithetical to what Wikipedia stands for"? Oh, please. Here's an idea. Let's give all new-born babies a gun licence. After all, it's discriminatory to restrict gun licences to those who just happen to have been conceived at the wrong time. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have been clearer, but your ludicrous exaggeration did not help matters. What I meant was Wikipedia strives to incorporate the constructive contributions of all editors, young and old, and respecting the fact that some people do have the requisite abilities regardless of age. To equate adminship with gun ownership is, quite frankly, stupid. —Kurykh 00:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Curious that you feel sufficiently confident in your absurd point of view to characterise my argument as "ludicrous" and "stupid". Indicates to me that you've run out of steam; all that's left is to hurl insults around, before going off in a huff. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
[goes off in a huff] No, but I do thank you for pointing out my hypocrisy. I will now retract that. However, I do have to note that by the same token you feel sufficiently confident in your point of view to call mines "absurd" even though haven't rebutted the basic premise of my argument. —Kurykh 00:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
While "stupid" may be a rude way of putting it, it is not inaccurate. If you extend an idea to absurdity of course it will sound absurd. Your comparision proves nothing except that it is not a good idea to give babies guns. I am sure you are not stupid, but that argument was stupid. Chillum 00:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I will simply say that one of us is quite evidently stupid, and leave it at that. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I have to say I do agree with Kurt in some respects; he's blunt, but he's also realistic. We do make presumptions about how people will act based on age. What we should not do, however, is let our presumptions blind us from the evidence that counters such a presumption, and we must, if the evidence is sufficient, override those presumptions (I hate repeating that word) and vote in support. —Kurykh 20:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I got my first featured at 17 and I still oppose people for being 12. 12 year olds are usually going to act like 12 year olds. Whatever. Naerii 20:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I remember when this question came up last time, and the RfA candidates were told to answer "old enough." Then the practice sort of died a natural death before being resurrected...here(?). —Kurykh 20:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
It's apparent we're never going to achieve consensus this way. We can't seem to decide whether or not it is appropriate to ask the "age question" or not, and now this is beginning to look a lot like the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ryan debate. Should this be closed before the discussion escalates? —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 00:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Things are not resolved, and people are still talking. I don't see this degrading into anything bad, people are still making good points. So no, I don't think this should be closed. Chillum 00:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Our ability to argue passionately is one of our greatest assets. Chillum 00:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
(To David Fuchs) You said that you became an admin in May of 2007 a few days after turning 17. In November of 2007, you ran for ArbCom, a requirement of which was being 18 years of age. Is something wrong with my math? --JayHenry (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The age limit was implemented midway through the election, which meant that quite a few candidates were delisted. Now, the question should be, if the above was true, why wasn't David Fuchs delisted? —Kurykh 00:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the real question ought to be why David Fuchs didn't delist himself? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
There is no requirement to reveal age. For safety reasons, I feel those under 18 should not reveal their age. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
And for safety reasons I feel that administrators on this site ought to be older than 12. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that was the point of the above comment - it's more about whether editors should reveal personal information, regardless of what some may feel about age-related capabilities. Wisdom89(T / C) 00:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that's the point at all. The point is where editors have revealed information about their age, either by their behaviour or on their user page, should that information be put into the RfA pot? As to whether anyone has a right to ask for someone else's age, the answer is perfectly obvious. Of course they do, just as the person being asked is perfectly entitled not to answer the question. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the inevitable question is, what happens if someone opposes because you didn't answer that particular question? —Kurykh 01:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
And what about editors? You can piss of some demented stalker just as easily editing as being an admin, should we make kids get a parents note for that too? If I saw an adult unable to deal with the stress of dealing with the nastiness here I would encourage them to step back, by the same token if I saw a kid able to handle it then I would say all the power to you! Chillum 00:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
What has pissing anyone off got to do with anything, demented stalker or not? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
You said "And for safety reasons I feel that administrators on this site ought to be older than 12". I assumed you meant that being an admin would expose them to serious issues, well so does a regular editor. If that is not what you meant, then what did you mean? Chillum 00:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I meant this. I would not let a twelve-year-old drive my car (yes, I am over 18). Similarly, I would not allow a twelve-year-old to be in a position to block a university professor trying to add content to this encyclopedia. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
This entire idea is false. "Ageism", as used in today's society, refers to discrimination against the aged[1]. Hell, it's defined as such right here on Wikipedia. What the younger sect here seems to be referring to here is "adultism". Restricting certain privileges, responsibilities and rights until a person has reached a certain age is not discrimination. The U.S. Constitution puts lower age limits on candidates for the House of Reps, the Senate, and the Presidency. Federal, state, and local governments routinely put age minimums on certain activities and positions. Like it or not, maturity comes with age, and twelve years of age is not "mature" by most accepted standards - physically, mentally, intellectually, or culturally. Tanǀ39 17:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break
(2 ecs) As for as I know, all ages can edit wikipedia. An editor can be 4 for all I care. If editors can be any age, admins can be any age too. Age shouldn't matter in adminship, only if they show maturity. -- RyRy (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Just plain and simple: You are strongly advised to not disclose your exact age— at all, because of identity theft. If you're under 18, that just worsens the situation. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 01:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, this is what I don't understand. RfA, while some feel is broken (and many ways it is), is designed to assess the quality of the applicant. If this is the case, then age should be totally irrelevant, and since it's private info, probably is no one's business. If you can't take the time to assess the quality of the edits and mannerisms of the candidate, then don't bother voting. Wisdom89(T / C) 01:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Hm, what if someone asks "what is your age", and the candidate ignores the question, and users oppose because the candidtae didn't answer the question, and they assume their young. Will bureaucrats just ignore those opposes? -- RyRy (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Probably not, because editors have the right to oppose for virtually everything, because it's their personal opinion. People oppose for not answering optional question all the time, this one isn't extempt. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 01:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
If someone is under 12, it'll probably be revealed in their onwiki editing and behavior. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
More or less, yeah it will be - but that was the point I was trying to make earlier. Let the edits speak for themselves. Wisdom89(T / C) 01:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Concur, but I also agree with Kurt in that immaturity sometimes doesn't show until they have the tools, and at that point, a lot of damage could have been done. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 01:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
One never really knows, age, behavior, and maturity are some of many factors. We also have adults with mental illness, abusive personalities, etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
So yes, we're all in general agreement that an under 12 will probably have maturity issues (which is OK). The problem is that when someone makes a legitimate oppose for maturity issues, but so much as mentions age in the oppose, they are pounced on for being "ageist". As we can clearly see here, they aren't ageist - they're a realist. —Giggy 03:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
In thinking about this since the last time it was raised, I think it might be worth keeping in mind a point Kurt was making - that past editing shouldn't necessarily be seen as the sole indicator of whether or not someone is appropriate to be an admin. This is, I think, where the "judge maturity by the edits" argument is heading. Thing is, it seems to me that being an admin isn't an issue of acknowledging that the user has been a good editor in the past, but instead is an issue of being able to trust that the editor will be a good admin into the future. To do that, we need evidence that the user can be trusted (and by that I mean won't make significant mistakes, rather than being a good person), and past behaviour is a fine bit of evidence to provide support for that trust. But it should be remembered that it is imprefect evidence, as we don't typically have past behaviour of being an admin to go by, just past behaviour in being an editor. So we may draw on other sources to help provide that evidence: we've seen behaviour on other wikis being raised, along with behaviour on mailing lists, deletionist/inclusionist tendencies, comments made in blogs, careers, and a number of other sources of evidence which might help people determine whether or not they can trust the editor as an admin. I'm not going to preclude someone just because of age, but I don't think it is unreasonable to look beyond what they've displayed as an editor, either. - Bilby (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Outdent: I've already voiced my opinion, but a point to make is that this entire discussion is moot. Unless anyone is planning on introducing a proposed change to the RfA system (something which is already going on) to do with this matter (a very, very bad idea) then this is just a rather large waste of time. Ironholds 02:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Must agree with Bilby here. Age, like editing activity, edits on other sites etc is another piece of information to use in forming an opinion. At the end each person expressing an opinion in an RfA has to, on the basis of limited information, determine if the person seeking the buttons can be trusted to use them well. A young teen who demonstrates maturity, reasonableness and trustworthiness will always be evaluated differently from one who doesn't. Someone is publicly known to be very young, and demonstrates that they are not mature beyond their years, will be evaluated against people's mental model of what that age person is like. - Peripitus(Talk) 03:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
If you base your support/oppose solely on age that is wrong, but to consider age as a part of your support/oppose is not inherently wrong. Beam 03:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
If a question is asked in an RfA along the lines of "how old are you?", and the candidate gives the response "I do not wish to disclose my age for reasons of privacy", then we should respect that, and opposing because of that is wrong. Now, opposing because of a lack of maturity is perfectly fine so long as it is based upon evidence. If that lack of maturity is coupled with the candidate being young, then that is not ageist, but realistic. However, if the candidate is by all accounts a responsible, mature, and knowledgeable individual, then an oppose solely on the basis of age is not appropriate, and that is ageism. sephiroth bcr(converse) 04:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
(Outdent, as this is a general comment and not a reply to anybody in particular.) It's practically useless to ask anybody their age – I could claim that I was 50 if I wanted. Wikipedia has no credible verification. Before you start asking people their ages, start asking people their real names and verifying real names; then at least administrators might be accountable for their actions. – Thomas H. Larsen 06:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Terrible idea. Age may or may not be one thing in respect of RFA, but what has my real name go to do with my ability (or otherwise to be an admin)? And why do you feel provision of a real name will make any editor more "accountable" - I can't see the logic in that? Would we ask everyone to sign up with their real name, in case they wanted to be an admin at a later date? Or would we force them to reveal their identity to the foundation and change their username accordingly if they passed RFA? I'm all for accountability, but that needs to be balanaced against the inherent risks in revealing Real Life identity on the 7th most popular website in the world (and yes, there are risks - trust me). Pedro : Chat 06:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I can see benefits to requiring age/RL identification to the foundation for trust positions like CU/O/Steward/Arb (currently) and maybe crat (not currently) because of high level of disruption those roles can cause. On the other hand, age or identification requirements for admins makes less sense, since the bit is easily removed from admins who practice the type of abuse of an underage user (say randomly blocking people/vandalbot/etc). Also, we all are, already, legally accountable for our actions. Every edit we make is logged, and its corresponding IP address can be subpoena and matched by our ISPs to our identities, so in the legal sense, it would be hard to be much more accountable, while still protecting people's privacy. MBisanztalk 07:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it's stretching credibility to breaking point to claim that the admin bit is easily removed from anybody once granted. Perhaps it ought to be easy, but that's another story. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Here, here. But remember folks, lets not try to get into a pissing contest where we marginalize alot of the great contributions we do get from under 18s. There are plenty of folks out there much more mature than their age. However, that still doesnt give them the right to a) own a gun b) drive a car (in some places) c) vote or d) enter into any legal contract. Its not that under 18s are any less intelligent or that they're incapable of understanding the weight of something serious... but rather that they do not have as much life experience as older people, who know how to look out for people taking advantage of you, or exploiting you. (You being the plural, you) And yes, one can argue, "I dont need your protection". And thats fine. But there are provision in old musty books that provide for under 18s saftey and wellbeing. And you cant argue against someone's goodwill. Well, you can, but lets not, shall we? Qb | your 2 cents 11:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Well I know 6 admins under 18, 4 of them are better than me in all areas, adminning and editing, the other 2 are better than me in most areas. I did qualify my statement with (say randomly blocking people/vandalbot/etc). MF, how many of arbcom's desysops have been for kids running amuck with the tools and how many have been for people who are much older find ways to mess up? Off hand, Ed Poor is well over the age of 40 (the US definition of old) and was desysopped for abuse. MBisanztalk 12:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
You probably won't disclose their names; but, who? Rudget 12:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow, this has to be the most circular thread I've seen on WT:RFA in a while. I've never seen so many people indignantly agreeing with each other. naerii 14:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
What are we agreeing on? :P (no, seriously... what is it?) Qb | your 2 cents 14:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I count roughly ~30 people agreeing that age isn't relevant to adminship/doees not need to be disclosed, and maybe six? that think otherwise. The whole conversation is just sorta amusing. Many people commenting in an annoyed sort of way that you shouldn't be allowed to oppose someone who refuses to disclose their age - despite the fact that this has not yet happened. Other people popping up and just saying a variation of "I don't think age should be relevant to adminship" despite the fact that this has already been said twenty times before them, etc. And lots of people just making statements that aren't really replies to anyone, just their positions on the matter - which is OK I guess but it leaves the "discussion" with an awful lot of redundancy. naerii 14:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that rather oversimplifies the discussion. It appears to me that everyone is agreed that age doesn't matter, beyond a certain age. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Well, rather than scoffing at everyone's "circular thread" why don't you try to help things rather than recapping how hilarious it is? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 14:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
... what is there to say that hasn't already been said? You don't honestly think anything that has been said in this thread is going to change anyone's minds, really? This is one of those issues where people tend to pick a side and sit on it. naerii 14:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, if that's the case, by mentioning how circular it is you are merely extending a ridiculously off-topic thread. Let's not forget, we're talking about the "how old are you" question here, not the ages of potential admins. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 14:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone yet disagreed that no one is required to provide their age ...? naerii 14:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
To that, I'd say, "Feel free to disclose your age, but you dont have to. Just know that folks might oppose ya on it". Qb | your 2 cents 14:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I suppose then we'd get some 95 year old retired PhD who would be opposed for lacking sufficient future need for the tools :) MBisanztalk 14:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Perhaps I should clairify: If we are (supposed to be) talking about the possibility of the question being asked, mayhaps a quick discalimer on the RfA instructions page should read like the above sentence... only, without the snark. :) Qb | your 2 cents 14:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that's a decent idea. To ram another personal opinion into this, I personally would feel dubious about supporting the RfA of someone I knew was, say, 12, even if they generally seemed mature enough. It's probably just personal prejudice based on most of the 12-year-olds I know in real life. But if that 12-year-old was canny enough not to mention or emphasise their age, I'd be none the wiser and where's the harm in that? I'd be forced to make a judgment based on their actual perceived maturity. I think a general rule of "Don't reveal your age unless you're prepared to be unfairly judged on it" is fair enough. ~ mazcat | c 14:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
"Unfairly judged"? I think your POV is showing. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
It probably is. My views on this are sufficiently confused that I didn't bother to take part in this discussion, not sure why I changed that decision. ~ mazcat | c 15:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
*Bringing this outdented so folks can see it - "Feel free to disclose your age, but you dont have to. Just know that folks might oppose ya on it" <-- Would this be a good start for a type of disclaimer to the RfA instructions page? Qb | your 2 cents 14:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)*:Smacks of instruction creep to me. If you feel strongly about it, you can always leave a comment below the question. –xeno (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Definite instruction creep. I don't see a need to add that to the RFA instruction page. Useight (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
This entire argument is little more than a subset of the circular "Optional Questions" debate. Asking someone for their age is an optional question, just like the rest of them. Failure to answer it may result in opposes, just like the rest of them. If it bothers people that much, a line to the effect of "While candidates are not required to answer every optional question, leaving some questions unanswered may result in participating editors choosing to oppose the nomination". Personally I don't think anything needs to be done about it, one way or another. Shereth 22:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, the real reason why 12-year-old admins aren't such a great idea is primarily this, and not anything else. Apart from perhaps a general observation that those of more tender years usually have a rather inflexible approach to the THE RULES, when on Wikipedia a good deal of nuanced understanding is required. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not even 20 yet. Just thought people should bear that in mind when talking about young candidates. --Deskana(talk) 03:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
It's pretty easy to lie about these things for fear of being judged too young, so why even ask? While Kurt and others say maturity in a candidate's contributions is not enough, it will just have to be. Sure, the stresses of adminship and the responsibility that comes with having the tools is somewhat different than participating in AfDs or reporting a vandal on AIV, but good administrator candidates, if they have been around enough, should have gained some experience with disagreements, conflicts, controversial debates, and other stressful activities in which a candidate's maturity under pressure can be seen. I would rather see a few opposes for lack of mature involvement in controversial and/or heated debates than strictly on the basis of age, and I'd hope that age-concerned reviewers judge to some degree on that basis instead. Okiefromoklaquestions? 12:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
It’s pretty near useless to ask admin candidates to reveal their ages, as we have absolutely no guarantee that they’re telling the truth. (Of course, if they're not, they shouldn’t be made admins anyway, but we currently have no way to tell – we have no verification.) So, therefore, asking the question is simply contentious: don't ask it. – Thomas H. Larsen 23:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, this discussion has gone way, way off track. I don't have a strong opinion, really, on whether age matters for adminship. I do have a strong opinion on questions that encourage users to disclose personal information. Frankly, the former has nothing to do with the latter in my mind. Nousernamesleft (talk) 00:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Bottom line: I've yet to see the answer (or lack thereof) to the age question impact an RfA or sway !voters one way or another. Furthermore, it's an optional question (yes I know how we all view them), and the candidate does not have to answer if offended or if perceived as dispensing personal information. Seems like the people who take issue with it are young editors, and select few others. If the question is asked, don't bully the questioner, especially if it's answered. If it goes unanswered, or the candidate has done so generically and evasively (and nothing happens to create pile on), then just leave the matter be. Wisdom89(T / C) 01:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you, Wisdom. I take issue with candidates feeling obligated to reveal any personal information in an RfA, including age — whether the candidate be 12 or 80. Still, I don't like the idea of forbidding people to ask that question. Our bureaucrats are smart; opposing on the basis of an unanswered optional question (especially one of a personal nature) is absurd, and if the candidate chooses to answer it, opposing based on age without proof of immaturity in the candidate's contributions is equally absurd. Immaturity is an extremely valid reason to oppose, but look to examples of judgment in difficult situations and involvement in controversial and heated disputes. In any case, a 12 year-old would almost certainly show signs of immaturity without revealing his/her age. Okiefromoklaquestions? 02:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
So I guess candidates now have to plead the fifth on their optional questions? - Mailer Diablo 06:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's done by silence. Unfortunately, on Wikipedia, silence apparently means conviction. —Kurykh 07:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that the sort of person who opposes based on age will translate "i'd rather not answer that" as "I am under 18 and am scared you will oppose based on that". Ironholds 06:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
There was a time when people responded simply "old enough", which defeated the purpose of the question when all (or most) of the candidates did the same thing when asked. —Kurykh 07:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Which is fine when all or most people do, but as the sheer size and DRAMAH of this discussion shows we can't even agree on whether age should be a factor; I can't see such an answer coming into common usage. Ironholds 07:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Isn't the "legal age" on the internet 13? 13 year olds are allowed to use forums, etc. I don't actually think under thirteens are allowed to create accounts.--Serviam(talk) 15:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
COPPA, you mean? This might give you a bit in Wikipedia's context. - Mailer Diablo 15:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes, that, thankyou. Queerbubbles, with anonymous editing nobody can be held "legally responsible" for anything, nobody knows who anybody else is in real life anyway. Add WP:LEGAL and you can do practically anything here and be immune from prosecution. So it doesn't make a difference if that person is a child.--Serviam(talk) 15:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
^That doesn't count people who are identified to the WMF btw, oversights and the like.--Serviam(talk) 15:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
My 2c on the above discussion. If a user who is under 18 chooses to disclose their age and the issue of age is brought up an an RfA for that user, there is nothing untoward or inappropriate about this. However, asking RfA candidates for any kind of previously undisclosed personal info, such as age, gender, profession, religion, etc, should not be done (in fact it really should not be done in other places on WP either, basically based on the privacy considerations). Nsk92 (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree, and am leaning toward endorsing the ban of age-related inquiries. I'm not yet sure though. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 06:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
No big deal
Adminship shouldn't be a big deal. Surely most established users should be given adminship as soon as they know their way around? That way there'd be much less drama around requests for adminship. There are those that say the admins would be given access to gigabytes of deleted content, but if it's been deleted surely it can't be anything sensitive or it would have been oversighted? This is veering off the original point I suppose, but if you can tell a user is 12 then they shouldn't have the tools, and if you think they're much older, then they must be doing something right, and deserve the tools? I first thought it was ridiculous to make 12 year olds admins, but I know a number of admins I thought were adults who I recently discovered were only 12 or 13. Nearly all 12 year olds will fail RFA, but that's no reason to not bother considering them.--Serviam(talk) 16:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with most of that. However, I never have, and I never will, like the idea of giving adminship to any and every established user. I know of plenty of respected, established editors who I would never feel comfortable having as admins. Going back to the original point, I also know of plenty of young editors who I would fully support giving the tools to. I think the bottom line to this whole conversation is that, as Serviam said, while the vast majority of 12/13 year-olds will not pass RfA, there is no reason to be discriminatory against them, because there might be some 12 year-olds that can preform just as well as an adult editor. Moreover, to oppose an RfA candidate solely because of age with no evidence of immaturity would be equal to opposing based off race/gender, etc. JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 17:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
To claim that opposing a 12-year-old administrator candidate based on their age is analogous to opposing on the basis of race or gender is an affront to common sense and to the honestly held view of those like myself who consider a young age to be a reasonable predictor of future behaviour. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with MF here... while I am willing to consider a younger user, I would have a harder time to do so. The problem isn't always the 12 year old them self, but rather his/her peer group. A 12 year old can be very susceptible to peer pressure, might forget to log out at on a school computer, might have a momentary lapse in judgment, or heck, might be bullied off of a computer. So even if I were to trust a specific 12 year old, that doesn't mean that I can/will trust his/her friends. A 12 year old also hasn't gone through puberty yet... how many good kids go bad during their teenage years?---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon 14:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Also agree. I'd even go so far as to say that a statement like "s/he behaves like a twelve-year old" isn't really discriminating. We do not expect people at that age to behave reasonable. The occasional exception does of course exist, but it still is and should be understood as an exception to the rule. Also, while maturity issues are obviously not reserved for those of young age, the "coincidence" of some extent of immature behaviour and young age is, well, no coincidence. user:Everyme 09:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
You're right, Serviam: This is a bit off topic, but I agree with some of your points. However, admins are not only established editors who "know their way around," but representatives within the community. They must have demonstrated maturity, shown the ability to accurately and fully communicate policy and guidelines (and therefore possess a substantial knowledge of policies and guidelines), demonstrated an understanding of admin-related processes (AfD, AIV, etc.), been able to manage disputes calmly, and have the respect of the community. Surely, this does not apply to "most" established editors. Nevertheless, while reviewers are free to ask the age of a candidate, we can only hope that young editors who choose to answer this optional question, but fully meet these qualifications, should be judged on that basis alone, and not on age. As I said before, our bureaucrats are smart and will use their own judgment when taking into account editors who oppose on the basis of age or due to an unanswered personal question. At this point, we should leave well enough alone. Okiefromoklaquestions? 17:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Malleus Fatuorum, what do you mean? I never said anything like that, what I mean is that Younger users are more likely to be immature, but just being young does not automatically make them immature, you should consider each case rather than just say "we should have no 12 year old admins". I agree with Okiefromokla and Juliancolton, yes, not every established editor is worthy of the tools, but I think far more people should be getting it than currently are.--Serviam(talk) 22:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
To expand on that, many people in Ryan's RFA said he was immature and then mentioned his age as a contributing factor to the oppose, not the main cause (Immaturity). This is fine, but just blanket opposing with "user is 12" is not a great idea.--Serviam(talk) 22:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
The Truth is, adminship is at this point *not* not a 'big deal'. I think it once was, but it's a serious responsibility and a quick glance at WP:ANI, WP:RFC, or WP:RFAR will show you that it is very much a big deal today. With that said, I think I agree with Serviam in that young age is not ipso facto or prima facie proof that the nominee is an unsuitable candidate, but it sure can influence that. While a mature, dilligent, dedicated, etc. twelve-year-old nominee seems like a good candidate (and likely to be successful), when under pressure or influence they can slip up, and in sitiations such as that they cannot be held accountable, so that should be kept in mind. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 07:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is a big deal at the moment, and that's what troubles me. It shouldn't be, most responsible users should have it, but at the moment our standards are way too high. I have taken part in WP:AN and WP:ANI plenty of times and I'm no admin, and WP:RFAR or WP:RFC don't really seem to have much to do with admins. I'm going to try to change this way of thinking by supporting much more liberally...--Serviam(talk) 10:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the point is how often are admins taken to AN/ANI/RFC/ARBCOM...---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon 14:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
No bans
I saw someone mention that they would like to ban age related queries. Um... no. If you disagree with something, contest it, convince the 'crats that whoever asked the question you disagree with is off their rocker (and let them try and convince the 'crats that you are). No bans. —Giggy 07:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
What I should have said (I assume you're referring to my comment above) was that I am leaning toward endorsing the discounting of !votes based on sheer refusal to answer the age question. Sorry for the misunderstanding. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 07:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
On that note (and only, for now at least, on the note of discounting votes for not answering the age question), I would agree with you. —Giggy 07:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
In regard to your edit summary, what do you mean by votes, not !votes? RfA is not a vote. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 08:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
In theory, you're right. it's not a vote. In practice, it resembles one except in rare cases. Oh, you can discuss, yes, and you can add a paragraph or two of explanation, but except in rare cases it is pretty much a vote, albeit with a ~70-75% (or was it 75-80%?) threshold. —Kurykh 08:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Very true, and I acknowledge that (yes, it's not supposed to be a vote, which is why I said "null vote", but it essentially is one anyway). —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 08:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec with Mizu, to Mizu) Back in the old days, when men were brave, and women complaining of sexism on DYK weren't suffering from PMS, there was a mystical process called "Discussions of a user's ability to be an admin". Those days have well and truely passed; today we have "Votes for adminship". Get used to it, young Jedi, for soon your every ounce of being will become devoted to discussing this mystical not-a-vote-except-for-when-it-is-which-is-all-the-time process. —Giggy 08:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
...and women complaining of sexism on DYK weren't suffering from PMS... Come on, Gig. I'm getting a little off-topic here, so I'll keep it brief but the desysopment of Bedford was well justified and comments like that don't do anything to help the situation. Please, be reasonable. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 08:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you. I'm not sure if you misconstrued my comment of if I could have put it better (reading it over I think I'm making myself clear, but maybe not), but my point was that RfA was a discussion long, long ago. —Giggy 09:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
No problem, in that case you definitely have a point. Cheers, —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 18:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC).
Bureaucrat note: We do not discriminate on age. Age (lack of years) is not necessarily linked to immaturity. Maturity can be dermined by the time spent on wikipedia and the quality of contibutions, for which we bureaucrats can deterime whether to press the red button based on community inputs. I hope this ends speculation on the topic. =Nichalp«Talk»= 07:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I think it does.--Serviam(talk) 10:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Removal of Personal Information
Could I ask that an administrator delete comments above containing personal information about editors who are under age 18? Wikipedia does have a problem with pedophiles(User:AnotherSolipsist) and the Arbitration Committee's ruling on Protecting Children's Privacy requires that personal information of young editors be removed whether they consent to this or not. Sorry if this comes off as cross. Thank you. Ripberger (talk) 05:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
So, you're suggesting that we have administrators remove personal information about minors on sight? I know of a couple young editors that have no problem revealing their age publicly—does this warrant an oversight, or just revision hiding? —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 05:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
This is an arbcom ruling[2]. See remedy 3. Whether or not a young editor wants to reveal his or her age is irrelevant. Online predators exist, even here on Wikipedia and publishing personal information as a young editor is dangerous. The community and its administrators are bound by duty and common ethics to remove personal information of young editors for their sake and Wikipedia's reputation. Ripberger (talk) 06:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Apologies, I only read part of your comment. I have been told deletion by an administrator is fine, but depending on the information, the diffs can be oversighted. Ripberger (talk) 06:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
This isn't the right place to be asking about this. Try wp:AN this is the discussion board to discuss the process to become an admin... not what admins actually do/should do.---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon 06:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, actually. Why bring this to an administrators noticeboard? Plenty of admins are here and reading this. You or any other admin could do it if they feel it's warranted. Similar to asking an administrator for assistance directly instead of going to a general noticeboard. Enigmamessage 08:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The fact that admins might read it here does not make it the correct place to discuss it. Balloonman just pointed that out... So#Why 08:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Going to BLP would not be the appropriate location to discuss changes to RFA, eventhough plenty of admins read BLP. There is also the issue of "forum shopping" or selecting your audience. There are different forums for a reason.---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon 18:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I dunno, I just thought it made sense because this was the location where it happened. I also figured that bringing it to a noticeboard would bring even more attention to the ages, which we probably don't want to encourage. Going to BLP would be forum-shopping, but this was just keeping it where it started, IMO. Enigmamessage 18:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Bureaucrat note: We do not discriminate on age. Age (lack of years) is not necessarily linked to immaturity. Maturity can be dermined by the time spent on wikipedia and the quality of contibutions, for which we bureaucrats can deterime whether to press the red button based on community inputs. I hope this ends speculation on the topic. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)