Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 142

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.

Archive 135

←

Archive 140

Template percentages

While I may wish that RfA was purely consensual, it is not, as we all know. Instead, currently being an odd hybrid of consensus and "voting".

As such, I was wondering how the bot determines it's percentages. Guessing that it's likely that most bureaucrats will relay on the template for the percent.

I was presuming simple math, but my calculator disagrees with me. - jc37 05:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The neutral votes aren't part of the calculation. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 05:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Assuming you mean my bot, yes, it does not calculate neutrals into the equation. If you have an idea on how to figure them in, I'm all ears :) SQL ^{Query me!} 05:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

(Feeling foolish) The calculator wsn't in error, I was. It helps if you add the S and O counts together, and take the percentage from there. (I think I need to spend some time away from my comp for a bit. Eyes must be crossing : ) - jc37 05:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I know this has been discussed ad nauseum, or at least, many times before, but I've always wondered why the neutral votes weren't used in bot's calculation. Afterall, the percentage should be computed using the total number of editors who have participated. In this fashion, we're basically using the neutral section as a ghost commentary/discussion area, which we already have. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

In doing that, wouldn't neutrals essentially count as opposes? I've seen some neutrals, that could probably be interpreted as weak supports, and, some that could be construed as the opposite. And, I've no idea how to detect either of those. SQL ^{Query me!} 07:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, for a hypothetical RfA with 40 supports, 10 opposes, and 10 neutrals, the support percentage is 80%. If you factor neutrals in, the support percentage drops to 67% - which is exactly the same percentage as it would have been if it was 40 supports and 20 opposes. Most neutral votes are an expression of indecision or divided mind, and are usually best taken in the sense of an "abstain" - as in "I considered this RfA but found myself unable to decide either way", so the current percentage calculation is, in my opinion, the best available. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 14:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely on the math, but Wisdom also raised the issue of why we even have the neutral section at all. Anything in that section could just as easily be placed in the discussion section, and not in the !vote section. If neutral comments are merely discussion under another name, then one of those two sections is redundant. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 15:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, thanks for doing the math guys, my slow mind didn't even realize that the numbers would be the same. So yes, they would count as opposes. Not ideal. With that said, I do firmly believe the two sections overlap. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 16:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I do agree, as well, for a lot of neutrals, the 'discussion' section would suffice. SQL ^{Query me!} 19:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Agrred, for different reasons though. I think that neutrals should in fact count as opposes because an admin should have the communities support, not just its apathy and as such both the neutral and oppose sections are home to the same group of users; those who don't support the candidate. - Icewedge (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Making a neutral = Oppose is not a wise decision. Neutral means just that... neutral, not oppose, not support. It is when a person can't decide one way or another. It is a way for people to let others know that they have looked at a candidate and can't decide. It is not up to others to interpret their neutral as a support/oppose. As for your notion that "neutrals should in fact count as opposes because an admin should have the communities support" the exact opposite notion could be asserted, "Per the wikipolicy of AGF, neutrals should in fact count as support because if there isn't compelling reason to oppose, everybody should be perceived to support."---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the neutral section should stay as the comments therein can provide valuable insight into consensus. I also think the neutral count should stay in the bot box display. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The comments can yes, hence why they should be put in a comments section. Why should they stay in the box? The number of neutrals is completely irrelevant... Majorly ^talk 19:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I see value in knowing the number of neutrals... neutrals are the people who have seen the RfA and couldn't decide one way or another... they are also the one's most likely to change stance if compelling reasons can be provided one way or another. Plus, what does it hurt to have it?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, especially when there are a lot of neutrals; in a new RfA, that's a sign that someone asked a really good question and a bunch of people are waiting for a response. A SNOW/NOTNOW candidate would have a bunch of opposes, a candidate who is likely to pass would have overwhelming Support, but - quite honestly - the candidates with Neutrals are usually the most interesting, as candidates go. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 20:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way to list admins by country?

I was wondering if it was possible to list admins by their country of origin (maybe determined by their IPs). Sometimes I feel like we lack admins who are active at certain times of days, probably because it's too early in the morning where they live. Just thinking. While I know that this is a project driven by volunteers, I think response times of more than 3 hours at WP:RFPP (just an example I noticed today) should be avoided. I thought maybe such a list could clarify if there really is an unbalanced distribution of en-wiki admins around the world. Just an idea that came to my mind...the arena is now open for crushing my ego by telling me how stupid it is! ;-) So Why 11:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:HACKS. Skomorokh 11:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I know about WP:HAU but that does not help much because all people who are listed there did list themselves. Most people do not consider themselves HAUs and will not list themselves there. So Why 11:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If HAU is any indicator, then yes, there's an unbalanced distribution with North America and Europe being top heavy. If HAU doesn't help you find an online admin, you could also try the Deletion Log. Useight (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest the protect or block log, as it doesn't have a habit of getting completely overwhelmed and flooded and clogged by certain admins, virtually every day.

Maxim (☎) 13:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify it, apparently it's needed: I don't want to find an online admin, I just used it as an example. I don't think HAU is an indicator, because it's just a choice for people to make. We could have 90% Asian admins and HAU would still show that most admins are based in North America or Europe. That is why I was asking what I asked... So Why 13:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Based on the large sample size at HAU, that scenario seems unlikely. If you want something generated based on IP addresses, that would be difficult, usernames do a decent job of covering that up, but if anyone can do it, it'd probably be User:SQL. Or the developers, but good luck with that. Useight (talk) 13:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh, the sun never sets on the anglosphere. Geo-locating the IP (checkuser table) info for admin-only actions is certainly a novel suggestion, but potentially dangerous. If the sample size is small enough, individual privacy could be undermined through the process of elimination. Far-fetched scenario but let's say it's new years eve in one hemisphere and rolling blackouts in the other, so only twelve admins log in, eleven of which are known Aussies, making it obvious that the other is from... I don't know... Belize maybe. Probably not a good idea. — CharlotteWebb 16:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me, or I noticed RFPP seems to having quite a backlog from time to time is now a trend? - Mailer Diablo 18:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Occasionally there is a back log (which didn't ever seem to present in the past), but the times I've visited the page, most reports are dealt with promptly. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be particularly interested to see the list of administrators living in WikiWonderland. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

*raises hand* bibliomaniac 1 5 19:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would really help much. I usually edit during evening hours IST, that corresponds to early morning on the eastern side of the Atlantic. So editors like me could skew any such country-specific data collection. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Allow stewards to deadmin based on community consensus

See here. (crossposting across noticeboards). NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 23:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Good grief

The RFA process has become so cumbersome. All these questions, all this debate. Whatever happened to the notion that becoming an admin is nothing special? We're making it special by having all this process and all these campaign-style Q&As, and admins are being condemned for not keeping "promises" made during their RFA. It used to be that a candidate's suitability was determined by looking at his edit history, and having discussion by people who had actually interacted with or observed that editor at work, and who could remark on her editing habits. Now we're having votes based on answers to random and often strange questions, and oppose votes based on bizarre criteria (such as the one I saw last week, which was based on the admin using (what might have been) his real name!). Exploding Boy (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Most people don't like those who lie. Nothing in Wikipedia policy will ever change that. Jehochman ^Talk 19:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Erm... Pardon? Exploding Boy (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

For the questions, the corpse of the horse, already decapitated and mutilated, is once again dragged out into the open for flogging with no solutions in sight... - Mailer Diablo 19:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes, very amusing. Back to the matter at hand, however, how about eliminating these types of questions altogether and getting back to votes based on the editors' actual editing habits? Exploding Boy (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The RfA process is exactly the same as it was when I first stumbled across nearly two and a half years ago. The questions have been moved from the bottom of the page to nearer the top, otherwise it's all the same old stuff. Not convinced? Compare Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Werdna648 and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Werdna 3. Now if you're a ~~wikifossil~~veteran you'll be able to remember when it worked different, but otherwise not. Maybe the questions are not so great as they once were, and maybe the voters could do with being educated in what admins actually do. But those problems are distinct from the process we use. Perhaps we need to have a Wikipedia:Requests for RfA suffrage process? Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. It just seems like far too big a deal is being made of sysopping people, a process that is supposed to be fairly unremarkable. The process itself is seeming to add a veneer of great importance to the role of admin -- after all, as has been pointed out, we don't really have that many problems with rogue admins galloping around using their admin tools as weapons. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

And more questions for candidates asking for suffrage? - Mailer Diablo 20:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that suggestion was just a joke. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Years ago the process was, indeed, incredibly simple, take a look at this, for example. But as Wikipedia as grown enormously, so has the adminship process. Useight (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting how few of those early admins are still active. A few had spectacular burnouts, most just disappeared, and a couple are still active (go Patrick and Paul A!). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we cut to the chase on this one? Years ago Wikipedia was some minor site with minor search engine impact and precious little readership. So admin rights were no big deal. Today Wikipedia is ~the 7th most visited website in the world, a focus of the popular press and (wrongly) considered an authority. So the technical ability to replace the main page with a giant penis is, one might argue, rather a very large deal indeed. RFA may be crap but if we want to find something to blame for the leaps and hoops editors need to go through to get +sysop then blame ..... the editors. If editors wern't as good Wikipedia would be less significant and adminship less of an issue. This logical argument in a nutshell - it's our fault for being to damn good :) Pedro : Chat 20:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% Pedro. Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 21:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Pedro. While in the context of a regular Wikipedia user you can make the argument that admins' opinions don't matter any more than any other editor in good standing, due to the meaning of the terms "administrator" and "sysop" on most internet sites it is naturally assumed by most casual Wikipedia readers that an "administrator" is someone who is seriously representative of the project and is held in a position of trust and power. As a result, having thoroughly-vetted administrators is pretty important to Wikipedia's image in many cases. While there certainly are flaws in the RfA process, I think the assertion that admin tools should be much easier to get is outdated. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 21:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That argument would perhaps carry a little more weight if a plausible case could be made for the RfA process incorporating a "thorough vetting". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hamlet Pedro : Chat 21:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No thanks, I don't smoke. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that giving users the technical ability to replace the main page with a giant penis is a big deal, but no one who is likely to do such a thing is likely to pass an RFA, purely based on their edit history, and as I said above, problem admins are not all that common as it is. Perhaps I haven't been clear. I'm not suggesting that admin tools should be easier to get, only that, by giving undue weight to the RFA process, we're also giving undue weight to the role of admins. I also agree that the process seems to be utterly random these days. Rather than discussion from other users who have experience with the nominee, we now have votes based on a system of Q&A. Or, put a different way, I don't really see the value in having campaign-style Q&As with questions that any idiot could simply paraphrase from the umpteen previous RFAs as a determining factor in granting adminship. Personally I think it would be far more useful to replace all that with a longer personal statement from the nominee on why s/he would like to become an admin (and perhaps responses to object votes), with discussion based on her/his editing history. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that Pedro's comment about potential main page abuse is a red herring (should I have prefixed that with "with respect"?). Anyone who's had an article featured on the main page (haven't we all?) knows that's it's going to get vandalised with pictures of giant penises and perhaps worse that day. So we trust the editors of that article to defend it against such vandalism, but we don't trust them not to vandalise the main page itself, or to carry out a few silly little admin tasks like moving over a redirect? Does that really make sense? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Malleus, it's simply not a red herring. If you have the admin bit you can replace the entire main page. A change will likely stay up for as good as a minute. And given our hit volume that's thousands of visitors. And finding a steward to desysop will take several minutes. Vandalism of the main page's FA is your red herring as it makes no difference to our landing page and that's the one the Daily Mail et. al. would comment on. I'm not defending the current standards at RFA as such, I'm simply stating that +sysop on this site is a big deal within the context of our goal (free encyclopedia, kid in Africa etc.) if we wish to be seen as credible and reliable. And a big willy on the main page ain't going to help that goal. mind you it might help WP get even more hits... :) Pedro : Chat 22:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. But here's my spin on it. How many people–by which I mean regular users, not editors or administrators–come to wikipedia via the main page rather than a link from Google to a specific page that they're interested in? When was the last time that you looked at the main page? For myself, I hardly ever look at it. Protecting articles is far more important than paranoia about some hypothetical damage that might be done to a page that relatively few look at. I rest my case m'lud. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You'd be surprised at how many visitors the main page gets (I certainly was); 287 million hits per month. The "regulars" may never look at it, but a lot of visitors, even though I agree most come here via Google links, drop by there to check it out. (If you want more dramatic proof, look at the effect on article traffic of an appearance on the main page). – iride scent 23:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've experienced at first hand the effect of a main page appearance. My fundamental point remains though that it seems inconsistent to trust the editors of those featured articles not to put giant penises in them on featured article day, but not to trust that they won't vandalise the main page. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No argument from me there – you know my opinions on the matter. (For those who don't; adminship should be automatic for anyone reaching an arbitrary high-but-not-unreasonable target, such as 10k edits plus 1 GA and a clean block log, with the RFA process only for those who don't meet those criteria for one reason or another). – iride scent 23:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

According to what I see at User:NoSeptember/RfA chronological we have had pretty much the same process at RfA since this time four years ago. People say RfA is broken, and people say it's got more bureaucratic, but they're wrong on both counts. It has hardly changed in a long time. To give people an idea of how long this is in wikitime, nearly all of the active arbitrators went through RfA in its current form, complete with "optional" questions. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The actual process has changed very little since the creation of individual subpages. Rather, it has been the atmosphere and the shifting vogues of !voters that have changed. For example: Before, if you were an adept RC patroller with VandalSniper (back when people used it), you could easily pass RFA, while today, if you are a vandal fighter with Huggle, you are accused for being an automaton. In addition, the practice of optional questions was not common until around the beginning of 2006. Since then, the number of optional questions on RFAs has exploded. bibliomaniac 1 5 23:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that the process has simply lost its way, compounded by the arbitrary bundling of a few extra buttons that never ought to have been bundled in the first place. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

And there's currently a Request for Arbitration going that appears to have been precipitated largely because someone has failed to abide by a statement they made during their Request for Adminship process (now I understand Jehochman's remark above). Clearly, decisions about whether or not to endorse nominees are being made for the wrong reasons. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Only one? I'd have expected more. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

One that I know of. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that hard and fast rules aren't going to help "reform" RFA. Want less questions? Than you'll end up cutting valid requests for clarification on content or how the admin-to-be might act. Mandate a GA? As GAN can be a total crapshoot about whether a good review is actually made or cronyism comes into play, that would just encourage half-ass reviewing. No blocks? Then the good editors who stayed around after learning their lesson as vandals get burned while the cowards who created a different user name sneak through. Setting such a bar is going to cause as much harm as help. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is, as has become clear with this whole Elonka business, is that the questions are a problem. They are creating, in some people's minds, a class of conditional adminship, where people are being sysopped on the basis of promises they've supposedly made during their RFA. I think the "what do you do? WHAT DO YOU DO!"-type questions should really be stopped. They really serve no useful purpose at all. For one thing, we have policies and instructions that tell admins what they should do in various situations (such as New Admin School, as a most basic one). For another, it's a simple matter to simply search through former RFAs and C&P what other nominees have written. I'm not suggesting any particular nominee is doing/has done that; what I'm saying is that such questions really aren't useful in determining suitability for adminship, and some of them are clearly leading to misunderstandings of what the RFA process is about. Questions about a user's previous actions and edit history would be much more useful, as they would provide insight into the user's actual behaviour and editing and interaction style. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that giving users the technical ability to replace the main page with a giant penis is a big deal
— Exploding Boy

No, admins can't do that. :-) Axl (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2008

Is this a new feature, that the wiki software won't let you? I'm going to test it now... ;-) the wub "?!" 08:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The solution to the age delimna

Cross posted from Jamie's RfA page:

Ok, this is a non-winable argument. The problem is that on the one hand we have those users who are in their teens/early twenties. They will ALWAYS think it is unfair that they are being judged because of their youth (It was that way when I was a teen, when my parents were teens, etc.) On the other hand, we have those users who, used to be teens/early twenties, who remember the stupid things they and their peers did. Who remember how mature they thought they were, but now realize how stupid they were in fact. This group will always have questions/doubts about the maturity of teenagers. This group has years of literature, scientific studies, actuarial studies, etc that shows that people in their teens/early twenties are more likely to do "immature" things. There are reasons why actuarial rates for teens and early 20's are different than for older people. There are reasons why we have terms such as "college prank" and "HS prank" and "youthful indescretions." There are reasons why crime is higher amoung these demographics. The only thing that teens have is the rallying cry of "It's not fair." (The same cry, BTW, that the 30+ year old used when they were younger and "less mature.") The 30+ year old will simply discount your rhetoric (probably without ever vocalizing it) by thinking, "This is just a teenager, give him 20+ years and let him grow up and we'll see what he says then." Right or wrong, these are the facts. The Gen-Y'ers can't change these facts regardless of how unjust they believe they are.

So what is the solution? Don't worry of the Friday's of the RfA process. If you are a teenager (and that is known on wikipedia) realize that you will garner some automatic opposes because of your youth. Don't fight it. By fighting it, you don't show your immaturity, but you raise questions with others who might otherwise be willing to disregard your youth. Don't try to get people who are going to oppose because you are a teenager to change their mind, it will more likely force them to dig their heels in harder. It's a battle you can't win, and just might loose! It gives them a forum and it lets them convince others that you are in fact, too immature to be an admin. Instead, focus on everybody else, people such as myself. Realize that there are a lot of wikipedians out there who are concerned about HS'ers having the mop, but are willing to look at individuals on a case by case basis. Convince those people that you are the exception to the rule. Be such a strong candidate that when you do run, that the people who support you will be numerous enough to overcome those who do look at age. Don't try to use words to convince people that you deserve a chance, let your actions do the talking. Accept the fact that you WILL get opposes that you don't believe are just---not just for this, but other reasons.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but there are some of us who are not teenagers and also think that these opposes are unfounded and just plain dumb. The real solution is for the bureaucrats to simply discount all votes that are based on age. Fact is it always is unfair that there are being judged because of their youth. Quite honestly anyone who is willing to oppose an RFA based on age should be banned from all RfA discussions. High schoolers really do not typically have that poor judgment and the immature ones are more of the exception --T-rex 15:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. You are welcome to your viewpoints on this, so are those of us who have the opposite stance. I am willing to oppose an RfA based on age. Tan ǀ 39 15:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm the first person to say that age discrimination on Wikipedia shouldn't be tolerated, but to suggest banning an editor from RfA because you don't agree with their opinion? –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Opposing due to maturity instead of age is less inflammatory. ;) --Cameron * 16:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

you're not the first person to say that age discrimination on Wikipedia shouldn't be tolerated (sorry to burst your bubble), but you are right that it should not be. Banning editors from RfA because they refuse to understand the process seems perfectly reasonable to me. --T-rex 16:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it strikes me as just bizarre that someone would dispute that children or adolescents don't usually have adult-like levels of maturity and good judgement. The argument is so impossibly nonsensical that to me it carries just as much weight as saying "Nunt-uh." Friday (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No one is disputing that. I agree with you that most people of that age are probably immature. However there are many exceptions. What bothers me most is you didn't even bother checking to see if the candidate was an exception. Instead you stuck in a general comment that applies to a stereotyped teen, not necessarily to this candidate. I can see you didn't check because you wrote generally. Whether it applied to the candidate or not, you didn't know because you didn't bother to check. Majorly ^talk 16:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Well, if you know being a teenager is a strike against her, isn't it your job as nominator to demonstrate why this teenager is so atypical? So far all I know is that she's your friend from a chat room. I assumed if I was wrong in my assumption, people would demonstrate why. At least for me, anytime someone nominates a kid, the burden of proof is on them. I look for horses, not zebras. Friday (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Unlike yourself, I looked through her edits and saw they demonstrated exceptional maturity. You, however, did not. Did you even read the nomination? I said exactly why this editor would make a good admin. It's the burden is on the opposes to find something wrong. It isn't up to people to find things right. We assume they're great until we find something wrong. You've yet to find anything actually wrong here, apart from the age, which doesn't show she'll make a bad admin - we have several underage admins who are doing just fine. Perhaps better than some of the so-called adults. Majorly ^talk 16:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There's an elephant in the room, and I figure I might as well be the one (or one of the ones) to shine the flashlight - Majorly, your recent behavior is the textbook example of why editors such as myself and Friday are so incredibly hesitant to support young-aged admins. You yourself managed to present a rather level-headed face up to and somewhat beyond your RfA (and I'm sure you likely will again at some point in the future!) - but now that things aren't going on in accordance with your particular worldview, you're going off and making these snide, snarky, overbearing comments (look all over this discussion for examples, I'm really not going to stoop to a diff-by-diff analysis of this) accusing others of all sorts of mental inanities, making the occasional terrible block (*cough*) with the expressed notion ([1]) that you "like drama, so this will be fun", storming off and nominating WP:CIVIL for deletion ([2]), and generally behaving like an adolescent, with all the perjorative connotations that the word "adolescent" brings with it. The bottom line here is that it is very common for people to seem level-headed, mature, capable, and/or responsible when everything's going smoothly and they're generally getting their way. Even adolescents (and, by inclusion, "young adults" - the college-aged). Especially adolescents and to a lesser degree young adults, driven as they are by the need to stand out from their peers (a need which never truly vanishes, but does recede somewhat into the background as the final push towards adulthood is made). However, as has been writ and established time and time again, younger people tend to melt down a lot quicker (and a lot more dramatically) when in the face of challenging times than a person of more years' life experience. Everybody, old or young, has the potential to lose their temper - to briefly butcher Hobbes, the act of being polite is something that is never quite fully natural to anybody. The key difference, however, and the reason why a good number of people put more faith in an adult than an adolescent of comparable "skill", is that - simply - the adult has more experience keeping up the act. It's perfectly reasonable to therefore conclude that the adult will more likely remain cool, calm, and/or collected - and, moreover, predictable, set in their particular routine as adults typically are - in the face of whatever various sundry obstacles he or she encounters. I apologize if this reads - to you or to anybody - like a personal attack. You're certainly far from a terrible human being, and you're a darn tootin' editor when this current maelstrom isn't in the spotlight. I beg good faith of any and all prepared to take offense, and hope you - whoever the particular "you" may be - can understand the difference between a personal attack, and a personal criticism. There is a difference, a quite sizeable difference, which manifests itself each and every time a participant is blocked for vandalism, POV-pushing, or other poor behavior. Badger Drink (talk) 10:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah- under good conditions, even an unreasonable child can easily seem mature. It's how people react under stress that counts. Being usually reasonable is not good enough. Majorly is a perfect example - I can only assume he's usually reasonable, or he wouldn't still be around. But, he still regularly throws these tantrums. I don't want editors like that around- they poison the environment. I certainly don't want editors like that becoming admins. It's an embarrassment to the entire project when someone whose judgement was allegedly vetted behaves like this. Teenagers need extra scrutiny because they often behave like teenagers. Friday (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c x3) And there are those of us who are not teenagers, but still view the age-based Opposes as legit concerns (though, personally, I disagree with them). Tan's got the right idea. If the best reason you can think of to discount the votes of/topic ban people who Oppose based on age is that you disagree with them, I don't think you're totally justified. To scrutinize/limit/punish people for disagreeing with you is no better than to scrutinize/limit/punish people for their age.--Koji Dude ^(C) 16:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) T-rex - is opposing based on length of time somehow more valid (or less, for that matter)? Frank | talk 16:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, basing a vote on wikipedia experience is more relevant then basing a vote on age --T-rex 16:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

How so? In the age case, people are saying that someone of a certain age can't have enough experience (maturity/whatever) to be an admin. In the length-of-service case, people are saying "X-months can't be enough experience to be an admin". In both cases, what is being used to judge is not the actual contributions of the editor. I fail to see the practical difference between the two opposes. Frank | talk 16:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The difference with age is that it has nothing to do with wikipedia. And since I arguing based upon value to an encyclopedia, experience with said encyclopedia is helpful. Age is not. --T-rex 17:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That looks good on its face, but it doesn't really address your oppose based on experience. Basing an oppose strictly on how long an editor has been on Wikipedia is the same as basing the oppose strictly on the editor's age. It should be about the editor's contributions. To say that an editor cannot have sufficient contributions to attain adminship in a certain number of months of activity without looking through those contributions is the same as saying that an editor below a certain age can't be mature enough to be an administrator. The difference here is that you've used one argument to oppose a candidate, and you argue against the other oppose as being invalid. Frank | talk 18:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Amen... again, this is a no-win argument. There is no possibly way, in the face of experience, scientific studies, actuarial studies, criminal studies, etc to show that teenagers are just as mature and responsible as adults. Trying to win the argument is going to fail. The key is to demonstrate why a specific candidate isn't the norm. Don't hit your head up against the rail people, show us through a candidates actions/behaviors that the candidate is more mature than his/her peers. I firmly believe it can be done, but to tell somebody that "age" is irrelevant goes against reason.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that high school students are as mature as adults. I am saying that some high school students are more mature than adults, and that wikipedians should be given adminship based on experienced and mature they are on wikipedia, rather than something unrelated such as the number of times they have circled the sun. Please remember that this is about if high schoolers should be given a chance to be admins, not about if middle schoolers are more mature than forty years olds. The two arguments have nothing to do with each other. --T-rex 17:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

And I've repeatedly said that it is incumbent upon the nom and candidate to show that their candidate is the exception to the rule. I've supported (and nomed) people I know to be in HS. It is not something that I am opposed to. But it is a concern that has to be addressed. If you don't address it proactively, then it is safe to assume that people will oppose over it. To take it in a different direction, when I nomed CapitalR, I knew that he was going to get opposes because he didn't work at building articles. He spent most of his time working on Templates. He's a great contributor and deserved the bit. But he doesn't fit most people's expectations of what a good admin candidate is. Thus, I had to shape their expectations and explain why their traditional expectations shouldn't matter with this particular candidate. The same thing exists around age. Too many teenagers act immaturely, so the bar is set higher for them in regards to maturity. In otherwords, don't just say, "Well, the candidate has never acted immature, therefore the candidate is mature." Find cases where the candidate resolved and issue or responded in a mature manner to harsh criticism. Present a case that is compelling. That is how you get around youthfulness. Jamie's RfA is in danger because she is young and the antics surrounding it were childish. Sorry Majorly, but they were. And this isn't intended as a personal attack, but, I might be wrong, but I get the distinct opinion that you are still in HS, your behavior there was HS'ish. Rather than prove that she was mature and ready for the bit, people were scoffed at and ridiculed. This is not a mature way to deal with the issue and only firmly entrances others in their position. Rather than addressing concerns as a grown up, this RfA reeks with teenage eagerness---and it's honestly not Jamie's fault!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree age is a problem. Maturity is most certainly an issue, but this isn't the case with Jamie. People haven't yet managed to show how she's immature, so I'm having hope that a sensible bureaucrat (such as Rdsmith4) will close the RfA fairly, and discount any opposes that don't explain how she'll make a bad admin. Please don't tell me you're sorry. If you were sorry, you would not have turned up here with your bizarre ideas, and attempted to trash someone's RfA. PS. I've worked in a school, but haven't attended one for a few years now. One of my real life jobs this past year involved supervising people this age and younger. I know exactly what some children are like, and I know exactly what others are like. Majorly ^talk 20:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

My sorry was if I misjudged your age, which based on your response I had. As for coming in here "with your bizarre ideas and attemped to trash someone's RfA." Please note I supported her intitially and DEFENDED her against her attackers. If anybody trashed her RfA it was you. Her RfA might have gone a lot better if you didn't act the way you have.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If people decide to oppose, that's none of my business. The opposers are the ones who are trashing the RfA. I'm not causing it to fail. I'm not the one opposing. The only people who can fail an RfA are the opposers. Some opposes are fair, but others are not, especially ones that don't even mention the candidate. That includes yours, which is why I say you're attempting to trash the RfA. Majorly ^talk 21:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the drama. Whatever happened to assessing a user's suitability for adminship based on their edit history and behaviour on Wikipedia? Some of our existing very good admins are no doubt very young, and for some of our most malicious vandals their teenage years are no doubt but a distant, rapidly fading memory... If one were to wax philosophical, one might muse that the joy of the Internet is being judged purely by one's actions, rather than one's appearance, age, skin colour, wealth... I think a knee-jerk oppose based only on a nominee's age is a bit silly when we have no idea of the ages of most of our admins. For all we know, the place is being run by a bunch of 13-year-old Hannah Montana lovers. And most of them are doing quite a good job. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The real solution: don't reveal your age. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately yes, this is the real solution. Perhaps we should modify our welcome templates to indicate this to new users --T-rex 16:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like instruction creep. Useight (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Anybody who reveals their true identity on the web, unless they are selling something, is making a mistake. With sexual predators and various scams out, you would think that people would learn this?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Of course, there are more ways to reveal it than to say "I am X years old". But if there are kids who really are wise and mature beyond their years, chances are I don't know they're kids, and I won't oppose them for being too young. Friday (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, although it's a bit disappointing when the best advice we can give to a young adult who may be considering volunteering for adminship is to keep quiet about how old they are. Gazi moff 16:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Aye, shame. We should all be !voting for/against someone based on what we've seen in contributions. Is the person level-headed? Did the candidate keep his/her head on straight in a user dispute, and not actively engage in some sort of edit war? Did the person ignore consensus to follow his/her own personal agenda? Age oftentimes is just a number. There are twelve year olds as smart as twenty-five year olds, and as mature as twenty-five year olds. There are also thirty year olds who act like six year olds. So saying "Candidate X is 30, he'll be mature and smart in making decisions" could come back to get you, as with the already mentioned "He's seventeen, he'll be rash and impatient". Calor (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, whatever happened to WP:AAAD? - Mailer Diablo 16:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The same as with most of the stuff at WP:AAAD - people ignore it... So Why 16:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This is an essay, a page containing the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. You may heed it or not, at your discretion. Badger Drink (talk) 11:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

But would you support a 12 year old? Even if they acted mature on WP? How about a 10 year old? What about an 8 year old? 6? At what line do you (in the generic) draw the line? If you are serious about ageism not being an issue, contact me, I was contacted by an 8 year old who wants to be an admin. Is there anybody here who seriously believes that an 8 year old, even if s/he makes solid edits (on an 8 year old level) can be an admin? What is your cut-off? Do you have your cut off because you remember how immature you were at that age? Do you remember how much you complained that it wasn't fair that you had to go to bed at a certain time? Or couldn't watch a particular show/movie because you weren't old enought? Now that you're older and wiser, has your perspective changed on what an 8 year old can/can't do? Now some 8 years olds are more mature than their peers, but that doesn't mean that they are as mature as most 30 year olds. What is your specific age cut off?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I supported this user who was 12 at the time (and went on to nominate him on two other projects). Please show me examples of his poor judgement and immaturity. Particularly considering his adminship on this project, Commons, Meta (where he's a bureaucrat), Wikispecies (bureaucrat too) and MediaWiki. Thanks, Majorly ^talk 16:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If he holds a degree, why not? - Mailer Diablo 17:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This existence of exceptional individuals does not lead a reasonable person to assume that all individuals are exceptional. This is why they call it "exceptional". Friday (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

A reasonable person would not assume. A reasonable person would know. You don't know. You are guessing. Again, please show me some diffs of poor judgement from either Jamie or AnonDiss. Until you do, your argument is completely and utterly baseless. (And let's be honest - had you known AnonDiss was 12, you'd have opposed immediately without so much as a glance at what actually matters - their edits.) Majorly ^talk 17:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

As for AD, he's a recognized exception. I've nom'ed people who I knew were in HS as well. Despite my comments, I've warned them that they would get some opposes due to their age. Age is a concern, it's a fact of life. When you are young, people will question your maturity. By providing anecdotal evidence, you don't counter the body of research and evidence that teenagers are as a population less mature than older adults. When you know that a candidate is going to be opposed over a specific issue, address it upfront. Show that the concern you know will come up, shouldn't matter with the specific candidate. This should be standard in EVERY RfA, regardless of the issue. Address the concern, and demonstrate that the concern is without merit. As the nom, it is your job to provide the evidence that your candidate deserves the bit. Don't assume that people are going to do their research---we both know that most don't. AGE does matter, but the key is to show us why it should be overlooked. Tackle the concern head on, [when a 17 year old seeks adminship, I am reluctant to support. But Seresin has shown a great deal of maturity especially when it comes to the tools.] By badgering people for holding a different opinion than you, you don't convince them that they are wrong, you give them a forum to get others to agree with them.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Nor does the existence of an exceptional individual lead to the conclusion that no other individuals are exceptional. I have not been arguing that we should promote immature and incompetent users to admin, but rather that we should judge them based on their ability and not there age. If a user is young and immature by all means oppose, but if they are young and mature, then your immature argument is idiotic --T-rex 17:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Prove that the candidate is the exception, when you know that one is an exception, then you can't assume that one exception will lead others to believe that everybody else is the exception as well.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, would y'all wake me up when this one is over? I've seen this movie before, only last time it was about whether or not high schools should be allowed to have their own articles. So... sleepy... Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 17:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one sees how utterly ironic this thread is. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Age and essentialism

As is usual in emotionally charged debates, we all seem to be talking past one another. I'd like to try to make the conversation more productive by presenting two arguments involving age that might be used to justify an 'oppose' vote.

The first kind of argument-from-age works like this: "User X's age falls into the range a–b years. Most of the people I have known whose age has fallen into that range have been immature and would make bad administrators. User X is therefore probably immature and will probably make a bad administrator." This argument can be defensible, as I will explain in a moment.

Meanwhile, here is another version of the argument-from-age: "User X's age falls into the range a–b years. People whose ages fall into that range are (all) immature and (always) make bad administrators (and even if they seem to behave like grown-ups, they must nevertheless still be immature beneath the surface). Therefore User X is immature and will make a bad administrator."

This position is a form of essentialism -- or, to use a harsher but equally accurate term, bigotry. It insists that all members of a particular demographic category must share certain essential characteristics, and denies the possibility that User X might prove to be an exception. Those interested in a powerful study of this position might look to the the scene in the wonderful Sidney Lumet movie 12 Angry Men in which Ed Begley's character delivers an angry speech, and is ashamed to discover that by time he is finished everyone else has left the table and turned their backs to him. I'm sure anyone who has lived since the 1960s has heard plenty of refutations of essentialism in its various forms, so I won't present any here.

I claim that anybody who decides he will never support a young candidate is committing the error of essentialism. The same goes for anybody who opposes a candidate for no further reason than his age. These positions reflect an unwillingness to look at the individual's editing history, and to judge him as a person rather than as a category. They are at best lazy and at worst bigoted.

Now if you admit that you might sometimes support a young candidate, then you can't be accused of essentialism. This means, however, that when opposing a young candidate, you are responsible for giving a better argument than "he's too young". You are responsible for demonstrating that you have looked into his contributions and discovered some actual instances of immaturity. Here is where the first argument can be acceptable. It is entirely reasonable to say: "People within a certain age range are more likely to be immature; this person falls into that age range; so I'll scrutinize his contributions with extra care, and only grant him my support if I'm sure that he has amply demonstrated his maturity."

So my thesis is this: it is acceptable to scrutinize a candidate's history of behavior with extra care on the basis of a probabilistic argument from age. It is not acceptable to judge a candidate by his age, without speaking about his history of behavior. If you cannot take the time to research the candidate, then don't vote in his RFA.

As a final remark, I have very little regard for anybody who declares that he has made up his mind and will not change it no matter what anyone tells him; and even less regard for anybody who appeals to the civility policy, or complains about badgering, when confronted with clear patient arguments against his position. The civility policy is not intended as a refuge for those who insist on clinging to their favorite dogma at all costs. Changing your mind is a deeply honorable thing to do. Accordingly I invite comments, especially from anybody who thinks my analysis is off the mark. — Dan | talk 19:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No, you're right, and nicely said. My only difference of opinion is that I expect the nominator to do the legwork here. If you bring me a non-adult candidate, you better also be bringing me evidence of unusual maturity, or else I'll probably oppose. When I hear hooves, I don't spend much time looking around for zebras. I simply assume horses until I get more evidence. This usually works. Friday (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. A case of post hoc ergo propter hoc perhaps? =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Don't quite see how that's relevant ... just a case of common sense surely? There must be a reason why people of a certain age aren't allowed to buy guns, drive cars, go into bars, vote ... don't you think? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Such people are allowed to vote for things on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the real world. Trying to compare it to the real world is laughable. Majorly ^talk 19:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's about time that Wikipedia did try to connect with the real world a little more. But the point is not "laughable" nevertheless. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Malleus, I appreciate the point; I've tried to address it my reply to Alansohn just below. — Dan | talk 19:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you went a bit too far with the straw man argument of "User X's age falls into the range a–b years.... Therefore User X is immature and will make a bad administrator" argument. First of all, it egregiously mischaracterizes a principled argument. More importantly, it is an essential argument that we use in society, variously prohibiting alcohol consumption, driving privileges, military service, firearm ownership and voting rights of those whose age falls into the range a–b years. While some of these cutoffs are arbitrary and some are often flouted (especially in regard to alcohol use and abuse), almost all societies have such rules. While particular cases may merit special consideration, I see an age cutoff as no more capricious than many of the other arguments posited in opposition to various candidates. To call this "bigotry" is utterly unreasonable. Alansohn (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If by "argument[s] that we use in society" you mean laws, then I think you might be overlooking an important difference between Wikipedia and "society" at large. Here we can browse through the complete contribution history of any user. The law cannot do any such thing. The law therefore must depend entirely on considerations of probability based on demographics. We are not similarly constrained: we have a discussion-and-voting process for the very reason that we're capable of considering each candidate individually. The necessity of examining each candidate individually is the central part of my position.

You're probably right that the essentialist argument-from-age is no more capricious than many other arguments we see on RFA. However, I figured my comment was long enough already, so I chose not to refute those other arguments in the same breath. "There are lots of bad arguments" is no reason to cling to yet another bad argument. — Dan | talk 19:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Despite the frequent railing against rule creep on Wikipedia, the RfA process itself is one ruled by a rather arbitrary and capricious cutoff for acceptance, we just use Despite the frequent railing against rule creep on Wikipedia, the RfA process itself is one ruled by a rather arbitrary and capricious percentage cutoff for acceptance. rather than age. Why is 81% a near automatic yes and 69% a pretty much de jure no? Why can't we just accept someone with 47%, they're good editors after all? As you've formulated the argument, there are probably few Wikipedians who would adhere to your second version of the argument. But the bigotry argument still does not stand, and there is plenty of valid opposition from those who hold more extreme versions of your first alternative. Alansohn (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Alan, my second argument was deliberately formulated so that nobody would admit to accepting it. The idea was to set up the claim that anybody who establishes a firm age cutoff, and declares that he will never support anyone younger, is committing himself, knowingly or otherwise, to some form of the essentialist position. (This is called reductio ad absurdum.) I stand by this argument. Do you advocate a firm cutoff? If so, what is your justification? If you have found non-essentialist reasons for a cutoff, I will happily take back my claim.

We have partially arbitrary numerical methods for determining consensus because we can't think of, or successfully implement, any better option. I am all in favor of breaking down those firm cutoffs too; I've thought long and hard about that problem without arriving at an acceptable solution. We don't need to have arbitrary age-based adminship standards, however, because a better option -- considering each candidate separately on the basis of his individual history -- is readily available. — Dan | talk 20:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Dan, I really hope you are the one who closes Jamie's RfA. Majorly ^talk 19:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The fundamental point that is being missed here is that the RfA process is surely looking for predictors about a candidates future behaviour once granted admin status, as nobody has a crystal ball. Is anyone seriously going to argue that age is not a valid predictor? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, some people do seem to be demanding evidence that the candidate will misuse the tools. This is an obviously impossible standard though- RFA is, as you say, a guessing game. I think the point Dan was making is that age is sometimes-but-not-always a good predictor. Any reasonable person will agree with this, I think- the lingering disagreement appears to be over what kinds of evidence are sufficient to show that a given individual is an exception. Friday (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be always a good predictor to be a good predictor though. What are the arguments in favour of looking for evidence to prove the exception? Is Wikipedia so short of administrators that children can't wait until they're grown up before submitting themselves to RfA? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Malleus, age is a perfectly valid predictor: this was the point of my saying that some versions of the probabilistic argument-from-age are acceptable. It is, however, not the only one to which we have access. It's quite natural to fear that a young candidate will be as immature as most young people we know, and on the basis of that fear to take extra caution when looking through the candidate's contributions, reading the archives of his talk page, and so forth. However it seems very irrational to allow that fear, informed by a general sense of probability, to trump all other predictors, even past behavior. — Dan | talk 20:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I like your points you are making dan, however I'm not convinced it is "fear-based" necessarily, but more "logic" based. I don't "fear" 12 year old editors, or "fear" what they would do with admin buttons. But logically, I am hesitant along with several other editors. Not enough to blanket oppose, but enough to, as you say, look closer. Not out of fear, out of logic. Keeper ǀ 76 20:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly the right attitude. I completely agree that younger editors are more likely to not be as mature as others. So what do I do? I look closer. Yep. I don't blanket oppose. I don't demand the nominator to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the user won't go on a blocking spree. I do what everyone should do when voting on someone. I look at the user's edits. That's all I ask users to do. If they find evidence that the user isn't mature (it shouldn't be difficult to find), then by all means oppose. If you can't do so much as look at the user's edits, please stop voting here. Majorly ^talk 20:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You have a view, I have another view. My view is that is perfectly easy to apear mature, responsible, whatever else the flavour of the month is in the few weeks preceeding an RfA. What I do not see is how that is any kind of predictor of anything other than an ability to pass an RfA. Hence I will stick with a predictor that at least has some face validity. Unless, that is, you can persuade me that Wikipedia is so short of administrators that exceptions have to be made in the case of children. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, anybody can pretend to be something they're not in order to get sysopped. If they can only be bothered to pretend for a few weeks preceding their RFA, all you need to do is look further back than a few weeks -- take a sampling that covers the entire history of their account. And if they're clever enough to pretend to be mature for a few thousand edits over the space of an entire year, then either (1) they're secretly intending to drop the ruse and cause harm immediately upon getting sysopped -- this has happened before, but we don't have a good way of predicting it, and certainly we have no reason to think it's correlated with age; or (2) they intend to keep up the pretense of maturity even after getting sysopped -- and at that point we ought to wonder whether it makes sense to speak of it as a 'pretense' at all. It seems wiser to admit that these users, in spite of their youth, are no less mature than our average adult administrator, and so for the benefit of the project should be made administrators.

We do happen to be promoting administrators at the slowest rate in several years, and judging by the traffic at m:SR/P, the rate of retirement is also steadily rising. This however is not relevant. The point is that, even in a time of surplus, a candidate's age could never be more than the first of many things to consider when deciding whether to support him for adminship. — Dan | talk 23:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I know as well as you do that many youngsters see adminship as something to be strived for, a goal in itself. Their histories are often rather brief, and often channelled towards that goal. So if I choose to ignore that aspect and focus instead on what society in general feels to be a reasonable criterion for choosing those in positions of authority, I see no reason why my view should be dismissed simply because it appears to be unfashionable. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right in saying we both know that lots of people, especially young people, want adminship for its perceived prestige. The reason we both know this is that it's readily visible in the ways a user goes about preparing himself to request adminship. 'Coaching' is a fine example of a formal procedure for manufacturing falsely appealing candidates. Here again, the best way to prevent this kind of abuse is scrutiny of individual contributions. To oppose all young users because young users tend to want adminship solely for its prestige, without checking each candidate's history to see if the generalization applies to him, is to essentialize young users in the way I have described above.

To your point about "society in general": I can't help but repeat an argument I presented above, since I don't think you have responded to it. The legal system doesn't have the time or money to scrutinize individuals, so it comes up with bright-line rules and applies them everywhere. In many instances the law does not fit perfectly: for instance, some nineteen-year-olds are sufficiently mature to drink alcohol responsibly in the United States, but nevertheless they are prohibited from doing it. This is unjust, but it's the best the legal system can do. Wikipedia does not suffer this constraint: the software allows you to browse through a complete list of every user's contributions and fit your decision to the individual in a way that the law does not.

I'm sorry if anyone dismisses your view for being unfashionable, but I assure you, and I think my comments above confirm, that that isn't what I am doing. — Dan | talk 23:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

My view is quite simply that if Wikipedia intends to be a serious endeavour, then it ought not to be run by children. Your mileage may of course vary. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Why have you supported children to be admins in the past, if that's the case? Majorly ^talk 00:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to personalise this discussion? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Since you stated your opinion, I'm asking why you have supported child(ren) in the past. Perhaps you've changed your views since. Majorly ^talk 00:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The inevitable question I was tempted to ask you was which children? When? But the answer really doesn't matter, as I'm not prepared to rake over any cold coals. You have an opinion, and so do I. It's not mandatory that we agree on this issue or indeed any other. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Malleus, I've replied patiently to everything you've said. I hope you'll understand that it's frustrating to hear "your mileage may vary", when I've just been presenting a variety of arguments to the effect that this is not a situation where mileage can reasonably vary. I think there is a position that clearly provides the greatest benefit to Wikipedia: the position that scrutinizes each candidate and decides whether to support him for adminship on the basis of his individual history on Wikipedia, and does not deny him a chance at adminship in advance of learning who he is. I have defended this position against all the objections you have brought. The only option you've left me is to call for you to change your mind. Dogmatic 'consistency' is for politicians: on Wikipedia it is enormously admirable to revise your stance after being presented with good reasons for doing so. And thanks, in any case, for your input so far: you have given the most reasonable defense of the argument-from-age that I've yet heard. — Dan | talk 17:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you will understand that there is no reason why your frustration should have preference over mine. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, your unwillingness to continue the conversation -- a conversation I found very productive: we seemed actually to be talking to one another, not simply past one another -- makes it look to me as though you have run out of arguments. If this is a mistake on my part, you could easily correct my error by presenting new arguments or showing mine to be wrong. I think we had another exchange on this subject a few months ago, and I seem to remember that it ended in precisely the same way: your insistence that there was nothing I could say to convince you, so that we must agree to disagree, each allowing the other to hold fast to his opinion. This conclusion is silly: it renders the conversation a waste of time. But if you'd rather drop the matter, I'll drop it too. Perhaps in some cases it's best to let sleeping dogmas lie. (Sorry, I can never resist a good pun.) — Dan | talk 18:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You are, of course, perfectly free to make whatever assumptions you like. As, of course, am I. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"The legal system doesn't have the time or money to scrutinize individuals, so it comes up with bright-line rules and applies them everywhere." I wasn't aware that we had abolished the court system in the Western world. - Revolving Bugbear 00:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Bugbear - You're right, of course. Bright-line rules are mostly intended for the use of the police, who are not trusted with much individual discretion. The courts, on the other hand, can employ balancing tests or simply ignore the bright-line rules in a particular case. To re-use my example, a judge might let off a nineteen-year-old charged with possession of alcohol on the basis of his clean record, or of evidence that he was drinking responsibly in the company of adults, rather than, say, drinking to excess at a fraternity party. So RFA on Wikipedia should be more like the courts than like the police. The point still holds: insofar as there is a rule in "society at large" that minors shouldn't be trusted to do various things, that rule is irrelevant to Wikipedia, which is capable of speaking about individual people rather than whole groups like "minors". Insofar as "society at large" does speak about individual people, Wikipedia should try to emulate it. — Dan | talk 17:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Dan, while I agree with you in principle, there are two levels that you have to look at here. Your own example of underage drinking highlights the issue. The general rule that the courts have to adhere to is the rule of the law, which the laws are pretty clear underage drinking is illegal. That is the baseline. From the baseline, extenuating circumstances and evidence is provided. If cause can be shown, exceptions are made. The exceptions are not assumed, but are just that, exceptions based upon whether or not the teen was drinking responsibly with adults, or from a beer bong at a frat party. People who see age as a valid issue, see it as the baseline. From that point, evidence of maturity is expected. Despite what a few voices here might have us believe, the generally accepted assumption is that teenagers are less mature than HS'ers. To prove that, let me ask this, if an administrator did something stupid that made the national news. How would the rest of the world react when they learn that the administrator was a 12 year old? Would they scoff at that thought? How long would it take before the story became about 12 year old admins? I am in no way arguing that we can't have successful 12 year olds, but the younger the candidate, the more evidence that has to be presented to show the candidate to be mature enough.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The only thing anyone has said that has real bearing on this discussion is actually majorly's comment that "Wikipedia is not the real world. Trying to compare it to the real world is laughable." I sympathize with those who would set an age limit for admins, but it is almost as doable as flying by jumping and then jumping again. I sympathize with those who want to increase the level of professionalism of Wikipedia overall, across the board, in every aspect but it will never, never happen. Vast swaths of Wikipedia have become a suburb of MySpace/FaceBook and it simply will never change. If you fight against it, you are labeled things like "ageist" and "doesn't WP:AGF" or "WP:DICK".. you know whatever labels come to others' minds. Heck, Dan explicitly called everyone who thinks kids shouldn't be admins a bigot just atop this thread... Then, after the calumny, you lose. That's right, you lose. The schoolcruft folks won the war over letting high schools have their own pages. They won it by stalling, jawing and creating hundreds of pages, then screaming WP:POINT when someone tries to delete them, then hanging out at AfD in clusters and Opposing deletion of schools. The "twelve-year-olds can be very mature" folks will win in the end—you can take that to the bank!—not through the validity of their arguments, but through working the system. Wikipedia is simply not the real world.
Usually, actually, the damage is limited. Our reputation suffers horribly, but remember what Falstaff said about pride. The actions of immature admins can (generally) be undone; it comes out in the wash... Note that i said "generally" but not always... it's currently too difficult to desysop folks... The only real, lasting damage comes when real world info is divulged. 'Nuff said about that tho. Because if I say more, There Will Be Calumny. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 04:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well said Nut. Unfortunately, when this happens, Wikipedia looses as well. WP has to fight to maintain its credibility or others will come along and usurp it.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ling.Nut, your ardent wiki-conservatism is certainly respectable. I'm sorry, however, to see you characterize my arguments as mere calumny. I think you'll find that I did not simply label everyone who disagrees with me a 'bigot' -- I explained exactly what I meant by that term, and set forth exactly the kind of position that can fairly be called bigoted. Among other goals, I was trying to prevent that term from being unproductively applied, for instance to people rather than positions.

I should also mention that my first comment and several replies were contributory to an argument in which other users presented objections, I tried to address them directly, and so forth. Your remarks do not seem to have presented arguments. Certainly they do not engage with what has gone before, instead dismissing it all as without "real bearing". For all your good intentions, I don't think I can take your words seriously if you can't take mine seriously. If you aren't interested in having a discussion, perhaps you should have put your remarks somewhere other than a discussion page.

Finally, I don't know if your defeatist attitude is warranted or not. I don't know if Wikipedia is doomed, or dying slowly, or being poisoned by the younger generations, or whatever. But even if it were, interrupting a previously-productive argument in order to claim that everyone else's remarks were irrelevant, complaining all the while about 'calumny', hardly seems like the most useful way to handle the problem. — Dan | talk 16:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have given this a lot of thought, but I have not until now given my view on it. It is quite clear that there is no consensus within the Wikipedia community on age and adminship. When I think about most other people my age, I can see where a lot of people are coming from with young editors making good admins being more of an exception than a rule. However, there are still clearly a lot of people my age and younger that have contributed loads to Wikipedia and made great admins, and I think it is good for Wikipedia that this group of editors are allowed to contribute as both editors and administrators. On voting in RfA over age, I believe the best comments at RfA are those that demonstrate that they have gone over the candidate thoroughly and are well justified - as Dan seems to suggest. Weaker comments are more general, are not individually tailored to the candidate, and are not as well justified. Comments over age can come in either category; while I am not the greatest fan of Arguments to avoid.. essays Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions#User is X shows this quite well, with an age based based comment in both the red and green boxes.

Personally I do not take a persons age into very much consideration when reviewing a candidate - a users contributions and other sources usually gives me enough information to make a decision on what position to take and to talk about when commenting. I don't condemn people that oppose RfAs based on age, my position in responding to such comments is to try and demonstrate that the opposition is incorrect in regards to a candidate's maturity if I support an RfA. If the oppositions concerns don't have foundation, then few people will probably take the opposes position and the RfA will still pass.

As for high school articles, well it is to to be expected that young editors are more likely to contribute to such articles as they have "real life" links with such establishments - that is a primary reason why I started to contribute to school articles. As quite a few editors might be aware, I have been a long supporter of the idea that high schools are usually notable enough for their own articles, with their potential benefiting Wikipedia in the long run. I respect that others disagree, but I give no apologies for my opinion on that. A lot of adults support this position I believe, most discussion on it civil and mature, and it is definitely not about turning Wikipedia into Myspace. This is backed up by comments on my own RfA, where a few people made clear that they disagree with me on high schools, but did support. Age was interestingly not mentioned. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Promote as "default position". Hypothetical situation

The following discussion 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.

As unlikley as it is, this situation has a solution already. Community Input > "RfA philosophy" --Koji Dude ^(C) 17:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The position that a nominee should be promoted unless someone provides a damn good reason why he shouldn't is one I agree with. However, consider this highly unlikely scenario...

Someone is nominated, nobody !votes. After 7 days, no supports, no opposes, no neutrals. Should the candidate be promoted?

My answer based on my RFA philosophy, "yes".

The practical answer. If this actually ever happened, it would be an unusual situation. The crats should IAR and vet the candidate themselves. (the crat chat on that would be quite interesting) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that scenario is really far-fetched. I mean, you would have to disable all Internet around the world for that to happen. But yes, if that happened, it's with the closing crat to decide what to do. On the current system, promotion needs at least 70% support and thus when there is 0% support, there can be no promotion. On a hypothetical system where everyone is promoted unless good reasons are provided to not do it, I think the closing crat will have to see if he/she can find such reason him/herself and if not deduce that noone had such reasons and then promote the candidate ;-) So Why 12:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the concern would be defining "damn good reason". I see where you're coming from, but see conflicts regarding the definition. Lazulilasher (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If nobody voted after 7 days, I would expect the RfA to be relisted just like they do AfD's ;-) ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

As a bureaucrat, there's no way I'd pass an RfA that received zero input from the community. In this (admittedly highly unlikely) situation, I'd relist it.
As an aside, your interpretation of IAR in this case is wildly off the mark in regards to the true spirit of the policy; allowing the bureaucrats to make judgement calls about the candidates (rather than whether consensus exists or not) is decidedly not a cut-and-dry improvement to the encyclopedia. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

{{relist}} =P - Mailer Diablo 17:03, 27 August 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.

Opposes that have nothing to do with the candidate or adminship

I'm starting to get sick and tired of people opposing candidates for reasons that have nothing to do with the candidate or adminship. Lately it's the "OMG NOT ADULT" thing. We currently have several non-adult administrators who are doing exceptionally well in their duties. We do not have a rule stating one needs to be an adult to be an admin. The fact is, you don't need to be one. Despite what anyone says, there's so little that requires it. If a situation arises where you don't feel up to dealing with it, you can walk away!

I never normally agree with Friday's opposes, but his latest one is probably the worst I've ever seen. "Kid admins have generally poor judgement, and bring the project into disrepute" (emphasis mine). I don't think I've ever seen such a lame oppose. He a) Doesn't speak about the candidate b) Airs his opinion about something else entirely. You're supposed to air your opinions at RfAs, but only opinions about the candidate. Friday has failed to demonstate how the candidate would make a bad admin. Instead, he's made a lame comment grouping all teenagers into one. This is an abuse of the process. Any oppose that does not reflect the candidate and their edits should be immediately discounted. This isn't Requests for let's hear opinions about my age group. This is Requests for adminship. People keep forgetting that. If you want to air your views about teenagers, there are many other places to do it. Someone's RfA is not the place.

Another latest excuse to oppose is to "oppose per nominator's actions". This is the worst of the lot. I can vaguely see where the age opposers are coming from, but to oppose per not the candidate, but the nominator??? Talk about being desperate to oppose people. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be happy and positive? It sure doesn't help with all these negative individuals around trying to disrupt an already stressful process. This is one of the reasons I stopped nominating people. Watching people I nominated get shot down for the lamest of reasons is hurtful to me as well the candidate.

So, I want to know what people think. Should we continue to allow people to use the process to air their views, whether they are to do with the candidate or not? To be honest, such views are as useful as me writing "Oppose - I had toast for breakfast". They serve no purpose, cause drama and are plain disruptive. Majorly ^talk 15:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

At the same time, what context does 'Support' - ~~~~ provide? How is that any more valuable or relevant than an oppose that veers off into left field. MBisanz ^talk 15:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(grits teeth) - Majorly - this is why we have bureaucrats. To ignore spurious opposes. Obviously an IDONTLIKETHENOMINATOR oppose is ridiculous, and should rightfully be disregarded by crats. The age thing is different, but again, if the closing crat feels it to be spurious, he will ignore it. That's what they are there for. Moreschi (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, Moreschi, they never do ignore it. The only time 'crats can "weigh" votes is if the RfA is in that sweet spot of ~75%. Anyway, I came here to agree with MBisanz. Tan ǀ 39 15:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You're simply wrong: crats should be weighing votes all the time, but whatever. Moreschi (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, but (very, very generally speaking) only when the percentage drops down below 80% does any actual weighing "show", for lack of a better term. If I disregard an opposition in a (122/1/2) RfA, nobody is really going to notice (or, for that matter, care). EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, crappy opposition rationales suck. They are also not new.
On age, while ageism is decidedly bad, I'm rather torn as a bureaucrat. If someone doesn't trust youths to be administrators, well, that's a somewhat valid reason to oppose a candidate; RfA is a gauge of trust, and something that chips away at that is valid (to a certain extent, of course; if someone opposed a candidate for being Jewish, for instance, I'd be rather disinclined to give it much weight when closing the RfA).
Long story short: if you see crappy rationales in an RfA, redress them; RfA is the community's process, and nothing will change if nobody starts pointing out to the !voters just how crappy their arguments are. (for what it's worth, I do agree with you 100% about the "nominator's actions" arguments; I don't think they're particularly relevant to the candidate, unless the actions in question are in tandem) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's almost never a good idea to remove or disallow "unreasonable" questions and/or support/oppose rationales. Leaves things too open to abuse. Even an "Oppose - I had toast for breakfast" should not be struck out, although it would (I have to assume) be discounted by the closing 'crat. If "Oppose - I had toast for breakfast" actually created drama, I would have to blame the poeple that reacted dramatically more than the person opposing. In this case, although I disagree with the idea that younger editors shouldn't be admins, there are multiple people that seem to honestly hold this view, and it doesn't seem appropriate to try to silence them. Silencing a minority view is generally a bad idea. --barneca (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Here are some Supports that I find as unacceptable as many of the opposes cited

Support ~~~~
Support Nice guy ~~~~
Support Great user ~~~~
Support Yep ~~~~
Support Sure ~~~~
Support Why not ~~~~
Support He'll do fine ~~~~
Support Ok ~~~~

now until we start striking all votes of that form, I really could never support stricking an oppose. MBisanz ^talk 15:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The way I tend to look at things, RfA is a rather positive system, with the default assumption being that every candidate will pass, and failures (or non-consensus) requests being the oddballs. Given that outlook, "drive-by supports" are much more palatable; I don't see a reason for a !voter to wax philosophic about the virtues of a candidate. (though I certainly didn't mind it in my RfXs...)
Please note that this is my opinion as an editor, and not as a bureaucrat. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz, they are fine supports. We should be supporting automatically unless there is a reason not to. A support is simply agreement with the nomination, appreciation of the candidate's good work. It's harder to say why than why not. In an ideal world, we'd make every regular an admin. But this isn't an ideal world. It's up to the opposers to find things wrong, not the supporters to find things right. Remember WP:AGF? We assume the candidate is fine unless proven otherwise. Majorly ^talk 15:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Majorly, could you point me to the here-to-fore unknown guideline that says the default RFA close is promote? or that the default vote is support? I've never heard of this before. MBisanz ^talk 16:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no guideline, much as there is no guideline as to what is a good reason to vote and what is a bad reason. Historically, we have promoted anyone who has asked, bar any opposition. Today, we should do the same. Majorly ^talk 16:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz, the default vote being support is a fairly obvious conclusion to come to. When each oppose is worth 3 supports, it's completely justified to ask for a little more detail and reasoning. GlassCobra 16:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This diff from Dorftrottel/Everyme is a good explanation regarding no-rationale support versus no-rationale opposes. Acalamari 16:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(double edit conflict) I don't think an age criterion is necessarily a "bad reason to oppose". It's certainly a controversial reason to oppose, but a fair few people feel that people under a certain age are just unlikely to have the overall stability required for an admin. I think it's a perfectly acceptable reason if that's the way people feel. In terms of the "oppose because of nominator/nominator's actions", it's questionable but again I can see occasions where it's valid. The obvious place is Red Phoenix's RfA which garnered a few (justified, in my opinion) opposes due to his naively accepting an RfA nom from JeanLatore. Your RfA nominator, as the person initially vouching for you, does go some way to demonstrating the kind of people you respect and trust. If the RfA candidate accepts a nomination from a particularly belligerent user, then it kind of has to be taken as respecting the views of said user... in this particular current case I don't personally have any problem with Majorly's actions here and certainly wouldn't oppose over them, but I do make the assumption that the candidate respects Majorly's opinions if they accepted the nomination - and that can reflect on them. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 15:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Now that the Vatican has eliminated the position of Devil's advocate from the beatification process, presumably as part of its recent downsizing efforts, perhaps we can create an equivalent position here on Wikipedia. For each nomination, with its gushingly over-the-top description of why the candidate should receive the position in question, there should be an equal and opposite response as to why the individual in question is undeserving. This would allow those unsatisfied to simply vote "Oppose, per anti-nom" and avoid all the manufactured drama of questioning the motives and intentions of each and every individual who dares to go against the flow. Until then, the idiotic opposes are more than counterbalanced by at least three or four equally nonsensical supports. Alansohn (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I can think of a few anti-noms that I'd like to write. Keeper ǀ 76 15:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I...am actually quite surprised to discover that I don't find this to be all that bad of an idea. While Alansohn may or may not mean this facetiously, this may actually be somewhat effective, especially with particularly controversial candidates that have been involved in several different issues, and it may in fact help with personal attacks and the like. Any other thoughts? GlassCobra 16:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

So you'd turn it more into an RFC. That would be worth trying except that nobody takes the RFC process seriously (myself included). — CharlotteWebb 16:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that weighing who nominates the candidate is out of line at all, either in support or oppose. I agree it may look "cabal-ish", but if you find yourself seeing eye-to-eye with a nominator repeatedly, you are more likely to view a candidate they nominate in a favorable light, and vice versa. Sometimes I avoid an RfA because of the nominator. I don't think I'm alone in this. I think there's a reason some RfAs draw 300 or more opinions (and even more edits) and some draw under 100. I'm not saying that's entirely (or even mostly) do to the nominator, but I do think it contributes. Frank | talk 15:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this is because editors may infer that some nominators have delved deeper into the candidate's past than other nominators may have. While this is true, I think those voting should look at the candidate carefully themselves rather than banking on what the nominator said and/or who the nominator is. That being said, I'd have to agree that opposing someone for their age, while controversial, is definitely valid and not strike-worthy at all. Useight (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The nominator is a reasonable consideration. If I find a nominator to generally have excellent judgement, then I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt that they've vetted the candidate and are willing to put their name behind them. If a nominator generally displays poor judgement and immaturity, then I'm likely to scrutinize the candidate that much more closely because I don't trust the nominator's judgement as a surrogate for my own. As far as I can tell, that's the point of having a nominator in the first place.

One could argue that the default position is "support", but that's a viewpoint, not a fact. I've seen too many admins who left me wondering "How the hell did that person pass RfA?" Almost inevitably, the answer is "Support: Why not, no reason to oppose." It's not too much to ask for a positive demonstration of maturity and good judgement rather than just the absence of major fuckups before entrusting someone with the admin bit, which is 100% absolutely a Big Deal in August 2008, whatever it might have been 4 years ago.

Age is tricky; if it's obvious that a candidate behaves like a "kid", then I'm going to be very concerned about their ability to handle adminship. If a candidate behaves maturely, then I'd probably never know if they were 9 or 89. It's a gray area when a candidate has behaved reasonably but has disclosed that they're young. But out of all the reasons for opposing (and supporting) that one sees in the average RfA, age-based ones are really among the most minor of issues. MastCell ^Talk 17:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This is actually one of the reasons i like coaching. To me somebody who goes through coaching is: 1) Saying "I want to be an admin, but I'm willing to to learn and get the skills necessary for the job." In other words, "I'm not over eager for the bit." 2) Letting their coach get to know them intimately. I have made a nom in the past, spent many hours reviewing the candidate, and missed a major red flag. I had no problem supporting the candidate and didn't mind my nomination of the candidate, but it bothered me that I had spent 6 hours reviewing the candidate and missed something so obvious. With coachees the odds of missing something major is slimmer. A coach is also making a bigger investment/risk in the candidate, thus SHOULD BE more judicious in noming them. (Unfortunately this doesn't appear to be true universally.)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

All available information is fair game

Hey, it looks like it was my opinion that mainly kicked off the drama-fast, sorry about that. I don't want to rehash old debates but I'll try to explain a bit more. Give us the ability to mind-read, or to spend 10 minutes face-to-face with the nominee, and we'll have much better information available on the suitability of the candidate. Until that day, what's wrong with using all available information? If the only thing I know of a candidate is that they're buddies with a bunch of chat room kids, this tells me something. If, on the other hand, all I know is that the candidate avoids the myspacey stuff and works on the wiki, this tells me something also. I'm a big fan of using all available information, even if this means my reasons don't make sense to everyone else. Sometimes for me, it's more of a gut feeling than something I can completely objectively identify. For what it's worth, it doesn't look like I'm the only one with a gut hesitation on this candidate. But, if me being the big bad guy gets other opposers off the hook, then sure, call me a big bad guy. Friday (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

PS it looks like some people are suggesting the closing rationale should be "when in doubt, promote." This would be an astoundingly bad idea. Irreversible actions need to be done very conservatively. It's not like we have an easy way of correcting mistakes in RFA when we identify them. Friday (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I know some ex-admins who would take exception to that "irreversible action" statement... Tan ǀ 39 17:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Since I am quite conservative in nature, I'd have to go with the complete opposite view, if you're not sure there's a consensus to promote, there's not. Useight (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no doubt here. Age opposes are meaningless when not backed up by evidence showing how the candidate would make a bad admin. Until there is any evidence of it, the bureaucrat should ignore such baseless opposes. Majorly ^talk 17:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That there is no doubt in your mind is not the same thing as there being no doubt. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It is the same because Friday et al have yet to present an argument as to why this candidate would make a bad admin. Majorly ^talk 17:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought this was a general discussion, didn't realise that it was just about one candidate. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Two undesirable traits that young people tend to have are hot-headedness and a black-or-white outlook on things. When someone's nominator demonstrates these traits so plainly, it reflects poorly on the nominee. In my view, this is valid reasoning. I understand that not everyone will see it that way. This is why we have discussions. Different people have different outlooks. Friday (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Age is just as valid a reason to oppose as edit counts, months of editing, GA/FA writing, position on recall, CDB's or any other minimum standards that someone may have regarding an RfA. There are a lot of editors and admins who have written out their standards for supporting a candidate, and most that I have read contain some kind of arbitrary minimums for a measurable criteria. As has been noted in prior discussions about some of these other criteria, editors are entitled to their opinions and arguing about them does not serve the candidate, or the process, well at all. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 17:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement with Majorly here. Jim, I don't feel all of those rationales are completely analogous. The reason why Friday's oppose seems to be creating controversy is because they made their decision without even a cursory perusal of the candidate's contributions. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You see, at least edit counts and tenure give you some idea of a candidate's abilities, albeit a poorly quantitative assessment, but a base nonetheless. Opposing based on age alone, tells your virtually nothing about a user's work here. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree, nothing should take the place of a personal review of the candidate's work. I was merely pointing out that arguments on the RfA page may do more harm than good. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 18:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Age is a valid criteria to look at... it should not be the sole criteria, but it is definitely a valid one.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC) Oooops, edit, should not---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you Balloonman. I'm assuming you meant to say not the sole criteria. Age could possibly reinforce someone's claim that a user is, in fact, immature given that there is a correlation to be found, or that they cannot communicate in a way that is sensible and logical. By itself though, that's where I begin to have major qualms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisdom89 (talk • contribs)

Yes, I did mean should not... a younger editor deserves more scrutiny... and there is an age that I won't knowingly go beyond. I had a person who was 8 years old contact me a few months ago asking to be coached. Sorry, I'm not knowingly going to support a 8 year old for admin. Call that ageism, but there is only so far that I'm willing to go ;-) But at 8 there will be other reasons to oppose. ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think my arguments the last time this blew up are quite germane here; see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 136. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

RfA is a place to !vote and display your opinion, at your own discretion. No matter how rediculos or ageist or racist an Oppose is, none of us have the right to discount other people's vote or scrutinize/badger others. If you don't want ageist comments to be counted, the way to take action is to nominate smart Bureaucrats who will have the common sense to do it. That sounds like a hell of a good idea compared to arguing/bitching on WT:RFA.--Koji Dude ^(C) 21:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

RfA is not a !vote. It is a place to discuss, to reach consensus of whether an editor is worthy of adminship. In which case, ridiculous, ageist and racist "votes" can and sometimes will be disregarded, as this form of opinion is an attempt to prove a POINT, and not to reach consensus. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It's the user's risk when they decide to comment on someone's RfA with strange rationales, that someone is going to badger them. If their oppose was about the candidate, was fair, and was relevant to the discussion at hand, no one would ever question it. People question votes because there is something very much wrong with the votes. Majorly ^talk 21:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Who's to decide what's "ridiculous, ageist or racist"? You? Me? I have already seen quite a few comments in this thread that I believe to be ridiculous, yet I don't suggest that anyone should ignore them. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It's quite obvious that opposing a candidate because of a nominator's actions is irrelevant to whether they'd make a good admin or not. And it's quite obvious that someone saying "Oppose - too young" is ageist, and doesn't actually have any evidence that the candidate would make a bad admin. Majorly ^talk 21:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It's quite obvious that it's not obvious at all, since I don't agree with you. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not obvious to you, but to any sensible person it is. The fact you don't agree with me is a great understatement. Majorly ^talk 21:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Now why do you gotta go there? You support underaged admin candidates. Others don't. If this ain't in PEREN, it should be. No reason to resort to calling someone an non-sensible person. Lay off, Majorly. Keeper ǀ 76 21:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You know, when a line of argument begins "It's quite obvious..." or "There is no doubt that...", it's a sure sign that an extremely debatable assumption is about to follow. :) MastCell ^Talk 21:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It's quite obvious you're right. :-) --Koji Dude ^(C) 21:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Everybody is indeed entitled to their opinion. However, some of such opposes are absurd and meant to prove a point, and deserve to be ignored. Not badgered, but ignored. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) If the nominator is disruptive and constantly shows poor judgement/behavior, then it's not a good sign that they would be the one to say "you should be an admin". Also, there are Opposes that give more reasoning than just the nom & age issue, so focusing on just those because they're the most controversial doesn't help to discredit the other, more reasonable concerns.--Koji Dude ^(C) 21:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This conversation has gone the same way it always goes: Kids almost always find it ridiculous and wrong that someone would oppose them for being a kid, while adults usually think such objections are understandable. This is not going to change. Let's just agree to disagree. Not sure if the mentions of "proving a point" are aimed at me or not, but that's not remotely the case. I honestly believe children are poor admin candidates. This is based years of experience in which children very often act like children. Nothing pointy here. Friday (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If you think they're so poor, propose all our current underage admins be deadminned. Or, even better, show some proof such users have poor judgement. You play the tune over and over on RfAs, but fail to actually say anything with substance. Majorly ^talk 21:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a couple stabs at explaining my position. I don't see that more would help. As for substance.. well, that's in the eye of the beholder. Some people will see where I'm coming from, some won't. Friday (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, we've had a number of cases in the past few months where adult admins have caused issues. Could you point me to a case where a young editor has caused such problems? –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This is based years of experience in which children very often act like children.^{[citation needed]}? - Mailer Diablo 15:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(EC three freakin' times) I agree that children tend to act like children; from what I've seen here, it is mostly true. However, I choose to judge their contributions as an adult, rather than oppose immediately on grounds of their age. Only when you take a look at their contributions and their answers to the questions impartially, without regard to age, can you truly ascertain whether they are mature. Maturity, not age, is the key. Maturity might give a clue to the age, but the age does not necessarily give a clue to their maturity. bibliomaniac 1 5 21:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

In a follow-up to my past post, yes, we have had issues with young users before (Cute 1 4 u springs to mind), but these cases were relatively simple cases of vandalism and sockpuppetry, just simple immaturity. It is the "mature" sockpuppeteers who are infinitely more dangerous because their minds are so much more mature and developed. bibliomaniac 1 5 21:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)