Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eye Alaska

"Are you over 18"

Should we discourage this question on privacy grounds? A person should not have to yield any personal information to earn our consideration at RfA, and while we all know that while these questions are "optional", people feel that they're expected to answer. There's pressure.

We all get so concerned about privacy on BLPs, trying to protect publicly-available information like the first names of spouses, and even — in one recent and incredible effort which was thankfully rejected — trying to conceal the surnames of the convicted torture-murderers Manfred Lauber and Wolfgang Werlé. There are obvious differences — that's article space and this isn't, those pages are indexed and these pages are NOINDEXed — but there would be much hypocrisy in discouraging the inclusion of publicly-available information on notable persons while condoning systematized requests for private information from our own editors.

And no, I'm not some 12-year-old pissed off because there's an ongoing age crackdown at RfA. I'm well over 18, and I'm not afraid to disclose my age. But some people may want to keep that sort of thing a secret and not be judged for refusing to give the information, so this should never become a regular question at RfA.

I remember being discouraged from asking a regular policy question about open editing and anonymous users, on the grounds that too many questions are being asked, and too many people are reluctant to undergo the ordeal. Since candidates are overburdened already, is it appropriate to be pressuring them for personal information through the question system? Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 00:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The question should be discouraged indeed. Simply saying that it is "optional" no longer cuts it; people assume any kind of refusal to answer is the confirmation that said person is under 18. unlike the abilities of Permissions such as Checkuser, which require identification and a minimal age, any acts committed with admin abilities can be quickly and easily corrected; there's no reason that a "minimal age" should be considered. In any case, setting a number is impossible; countries and cultures have different standards of when one is considered an "adult", and since this isn't a legal matter there can be no claim that we must abide by the US definition. Ironholds 00:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Has this question been asked lately? — Dan | talk 00:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

@Dan: Yep: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Synergy#Questions_for_the_candidate #11. Regards, —αἰτίας •discussion• 00:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the over 18 question should be discouraged on privacy grounds, although I am not sure how exactly to do that. I actually share many of Sandstein's concerns about underage admins, but I think that asking direct questions regarding any kind of personal data is not appropriate. If the candidate has chosen to previosly disclose this info somewhere else (on their user page, talk page, etc), that's a different story. Nsk92 (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't like this question either, but I have some questions about the rationale. None of these are rhetorical. What is the precise problem or evil excluding the question seeks to prevent? Making it more difficult to find out an editor is a child? Making it more difficult to locate, identify, out, or harass a child editor? To what extent does knowledge of age help someone to determine a child's RL ID? Does every (child) candidate have a problem with answering the age question or are some happy to answer it? If the only problem is editors getting discouraged from participation in an arduous process, then would discouraging votes based on the candidate's refusal to answer optional questions (and perhaps bureaucratic disregard of such votes specifically regarding the age question) solve this problem more effectively?--chaser - t 00:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me take these one at a time.

• 1.) I think that excluding the question would prevent editors from being pressured to reveal an aspect of personal identity they have not indicated any willingness to reveal, and also have the salutary effect of forcing a contribs-based judgment of maturity rather than an age-based judgment of maturity.
• 2.) Well, I don't think we should have to "find out" any aspect of an editor's identity.
• 3.) This isn't really a worry about protecting children, I wouldn't say. There's plenty of "out" children on this site, and if someone were preying on kids here, there's plenty around.
• 4.) I don't think knowing age could help determine ID. Not much, anyway.
• 5.) I figure that anyone who hasn't already volunteered that information would prefer to do it at a time and place of their choosing.
• 6.) I guess the possible discouragement of candidates from participation is not my main concern. I mostly brought that up because I was previously asked not to use a general "standardized" question on open editing, under the rationale that overquestioning discourages candidacies. I do worry that someone might avoid service to the project as an administrator because they fear they will be pressured to reveal personal information — and !voted against if they don't — but it's not my main problem with the age question.

Hope that helps. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 06:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that asking the under 18 question in RfAs sets a general bad precedent regarding privacy-related info on WP. I don't believe that any WP editor should ever be required to disclose any personal information about themselves, such as gender, age, nationality, religion, where they live, what their profession is, etc. It is very easy to get on a slippery slope with questions like that, and I would rather we did not start down that road at all. Nsk92 (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We should not request that a user reveal personal information about themselves as a prerequisite to becoming an admin. It raises privacy concerns, and is totally irrelevant in determining whether someone is fit to be an admin. The only things that matter are the quality of the applicant's work and the soundness of their judgement. If someone has demonstrated through their contributions the level head and hard work necessary to convince me they should be an admin, then I don't care how old or young they are and neither should the 'pedia. Reyk _YO! 01:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

These questions should be optional anyway, so they shouldn't have to be answered, but things naturally don't work out that way. —Animum (talk) 01:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This question should never be asked at an RFA, it's adminship for god's sake not checkuser. It puts the candidate between a rock and a hard place, because if the person doesn't answer it they are considered as being under 18, so it therefore is not optional and it is asking a person to reveal private information that is not necessary to decide whether or not a person is eligible for adminship. The only thing that is needed to see if a person is eligible is Special:Contributions. I would request that if this question is asked again on another RFA it will be reverted on site. --Coffee // talk // ark // 02:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly, Coffee. Every time I see this question asked I want to respond "old enough to be an admin" for them. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  02:06 7 September, 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's an inappropriate question, and I say that as one of the evil ageist cabal. There's a difference between being immature and acting immature, and this puts undue weight on age as an issue; even as someone who thinks age is an issue, there are plenty of people under 18 I'd still support (Giggy, for example), and no doubt plenty more I have supported who haven't disclosed their age. Anyway, as we've learned rather forcefully over the last couple of days, People on Wikipedia Are Not Necessarily Who They Say They Are. – iridescent 02:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well... on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Naturally, people shouldn't give much weight on the answer to this question. —Dark ^talk 02:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes... the age question should be discouraged... I say that as a person who fully understands and appreciates the position that some people take regarding youth. There are legitimate arguments to be made, but I think privacy is paramount and I don't think it should be asked. Because there is no way to verify the veracity of the statement. Who knows, somebody may be able to tell enough lies that they can get a job with the Wiki Foundation.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes. - Mailer Diablo 12:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know why the question holds weight at all. In my case, whether age matters can be summed up in two words: Anonymous Dissident. Wizardman 03:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

As the person who's been asking this question a few times, I'm surprised at the privacy concerns above. Common sense tells us that all editors are somewhere between 5 and 100 years old. If an editor tells us that he or she's either in the 5-18 or in the 19-100 year range, that's by far not enough information to identify him or her in any way. Moreover, the editor can choose to withhold the information, or they can lie (although I'm WP:AGF and assume that they usually do not).

But adminship is a position of responsability, and I think that it is fair that persons who seek such responsability – and any status that may be attached to it – be ready to make this one datum public if they want the job. We've, after all, had our share of drama because of unsuitable admins. I know that many children are well-suited for adminship, but again, common sense tells me that, on a purely statistical basis, a random 15-year-old is less likely to be suitable than, say, a random 25-year-old.  Sandstein  05:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that there is no easy way for them to not answer that question? If you were to ask someone who was 16 and didn't want to reveal that information, them not answering the question makes people think that they are under 18; if you ask someone who is 22 and they don't want to give out the information they also will be thought of as under 18. --Coffee // talk // ark // 06:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, an easy way to answer the question is to say "I don't want to say." I'll still support them if it is likely, judging from the subject matter or style of their contributions, that they are adults (e.g. if they write articles about, say, ancient Roman history instead of video games); or if their contribs and length of service indicate exceptional maturity. I'll just apply a much higher standard in the latter case.  Sandstein  07:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

For those who believe that refusal to answer is guilty, this answer to them is as good as not answering, perhaps even worse. - Mailer Diablo 12:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Guilt doesn't come into this at any level.  Sandstein  15:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't phrase it clearly. I mean, if not answering the question would make some people think that the candidate is under 18, then answering "I don't want to say" would probably have the same effect on this same group of people (they would still think that the candidate is under 18), or worse treat it as the candidate is trying to be evasive (perhaps, even grounds for opposing the candidate's RfA). So the answer is not the easy solution out. - Mailer Diablo 15:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not, but my concern is not to provide an easy solution out. I want admin colleagues whom I can trust. I will ask whatever question I feel is required to that effect. It's up to the candidate to decide whether they want to answer (and possibly get my vote) or not answer (and a bit less possibly get my vote).  Sandstein  15:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion continued below. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

When I say "privacy concern", I don't mean that anyone is going to be stalked and targeted for flaming arrows of death based on this — just that this is personal information that people have already chosen not to volunteer if the question is even getting asked in the first place. It's something that a lot of people have no interest in telling everyone, and putting pressure on them to cough it up if they don't want to look like they're withholding information — or don't want to look like they're secretly 9 years old — seems unnecessary in this process. More importantly, not knowing someone's age might force people to actually look through their contribs to gauge their actual level of maturity rather than relying on that "one datum" you mention for an indication of same. I prefer, always, a contribs-based review of maturity over an age-based review of maturity, so I believe we lose nothing by not asking this question, and that we lose a lot, i.e. our basic respect for the non-volunteering of personal information, if we ask it. I don't want to give you a hard time or act like you're some crazed interrogator — obv. your concerns are in good faith — but I think this question is unproductive and a bit too prying. And also, what Coffee says. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 06:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I certainly respect the right of anyone not to volunteer personal information. But exercising that right, as with any right, may have consequences – such as not getting my vote in an RfA.

The age question is certainly not a substitute for a contribs-based assessment of suitability. That's still required. But admins sometimes need to make stressful decisions that other editors don't (such as blocks or deletions in a dispute with real life impact), and I am frankly more comfortable if I know that such decisions are generally made by adults (or by young adults with exceptional maturity). Also, because the functions of administrator and normal editor differ in this regard, past contribs are of limited usefulness for assessing someone's maturity with respect to such situations. So is age, of course, but it is (like a history of good contributions) positively correlated to maturity, which warrants the question as one data point among others.  Sandstein  07:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I asked Friday before, and I thought I should ask you as well. Where is the statistical data proving that age is correlated to maturity (behaviour)? - Mailer Diablo 16:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no data that I am aware of. There is common sense and general life experience, though. For Wikipedia purposes, that will have to do.  Sandstein  16:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Attainment of Formal Operational Thinking by High School Students. Take it with a disclaimer that Renner & Huitt's findings are not universally accepted. – iridescent 16:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The age question seemingly rests on the (arguably reasonable) notion that underage admins are generally immature. Now the question is, from all the admin controversies that were severe enough to warrant involuntary desysoppings (which as of this time usually means that the admin did something really wrong), how many of the desysopped admins were actually under 18? —kurykh 07:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

18 is a bit arbitrary. It also puts a small number of people in a tricky situation. If the answer to the question was "no, but I'll be over 18 next week". What then? That, alone, reveals the absurdity of the question. I would, however, support a question along the lines of "do you consider yourself to have the mental maturity necessary to be an admin?". Or, "Do you throw tantrums online, and if so are they due to your age or your character (ie. if you throw tantrums, or sulk, or snap under pressure, is that a character trait that you will grow out of)?" Or "would you be comfortable dealing with matters that are age-restricted in the country you are editing from?" Though that last one is more borderline, as it raises legal concerns as well as being a more direct form of "are you underage". It's tricky, but the focus should always be on maturity, judgment, calmness under pressure, politeness, and other such things, not on actual age. I also think more attention should be paid to people changing over time. Many pre-adolescents change emotionally as they enter adolescence, many adults change as their lives change or external circumstances cause increased stress, or their lives change in general (relationship, family, jobs, school, university, etc). The root of all these questions is really trying to find out (if possible) whether the candidate: (a) is aware of this; (b) is aware of themselves; and (c) if they possess the judgment to handle such changes, up to and including resigning adminship if need be, whether adult or child. Carcharoth (talk) 11:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Come on. I thought we are past this stage. And why 18? Why not 21? Or 16? Do you know that in my country, we are trained to handle a rifle to kill at 18 (16.5 if enlisted early) but do not have the right to vote until the legal age of 21? - Mailer Diablo 12:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The question could be formulated more elegantly, of course. I'm open to suggestions.  Sandstein  15:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion (with point reworded) continued at policy page. FYIP. - Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a good point actually. The age at which you are perceived to have 'maturity' varies across societies. Here in the UK I could drive, smoke, have sex, buy porn, get married, and join the army by the time I was 17. It seems a bit strange that a 17 year old could do all that, and yet not be permitted to administrate a website. However, I don't think asking the question is ever going to cause anyone's RfA to fail, as most people don't consider age when deciding whether to support. naerii 13:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there is value in the idea of looking at how the age demographics of desysopped admins compare to the demographics of admins generally, if that is at all possible. (I realise that user age will only have been known in a limited proportion of desysop cases.) Basically, such decisions should be made on the basis of data, not on the basis of assumptions. Sure it is tempting to assume that very young admins may have worked hard at "doing and saying all the right things" for a few months, out of youthful ambition to become an admin, and then, flushed with their success, foul up sooner or later by making immature decisions. But I am not sure that older admins are exempt from such things, and I could easily imagine older admins having a whole range of different sorts of behavioural problems that are less likely in the very young – COIs, tendentious opinions based on established life choices, stuff like that – which might also affect their admin performance. So, if there are data that show that young admins foul up more often than older ones, I would be in favour of allowing the question. If there is no such statistical evidence, then the question is irrelevant. Jayen466 13:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• I wasn't as aware of the issue, nor do I think it was as much of an issue in May when I did my RfA, but from a couple of the comments, this userbox:
  This user is old enough to remember what a typewriter is, and that's all you need to know.
  satisfied a number of concerns. Who says userboxen are pointless? :) That said, the issue is not the number, there are immature 30 year olds and mature 12 year olds. I think the onus is on those who choose to identify as <18 to prove they're not the norm. That said, there are >18 drama mavens so >18 isn't a sign of A OK. I don't think the number matters as much as temperament. TravellingCari 15:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A decision

Having looked at some past discussions of this, it has come up over and over again, and nothing has been done. Looking above, I can only see one user who really thinks it's a good idea - and that's the user who posted the question. I think something needs to be done about questions of this kind once and for all, before this thread dries up yet again. Might I humbly suggest all such question are removed from RfAs, and if they get asked, are removed? Does that sound fair? how do you turn this on 12:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps a blanket ban of questions of all personal type? (such as age, location, occupation etc). how do you turn this on 12:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That would violate WP:MOP, the adminship policy, which states: "Adminship is oriented to communal trust and confidence, rather than checklists and edit counts; each user will have their own way to assess their confidence in a candidates' readiness for the role."

This implies that users may not be prohibited from asking questions that they feel are relevant for assessing a candidate's readiness. To change this, you would need to gather consensus to change the policy at the policy talk page.  Sandstein  14:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sandstein. While I'd probably prefer an optional question of "Approximately how old are you?" rather than specifically "Are you over 18", in either case it is a good-faith attempt by the questioner in order to obtain information they feel is relevant to their decision. The question is optional, and if the number of people who care about age is as low as you suggest, surely a candidate would not find themselves receiving many opposes if they chose not to answer it. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 14:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree age has a lot to do with adminship. Someone could easily just lie about their age. If you're going to !vote on RfA, what's hard about going through the candidate's contributions yourself? And if someone did answer "no" to your question, would you check any further, or oppose based on that alone? What if they answered yes? Would they get an automatic support? I really think personal questions are irrelevant and intrusive, and that if you want to get to know if the candidate is suitable, you should look at their contributions. how do you turn this on 14:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any such implication, Sandstein. It implies that you are free to select criteria, not that any question you might want to ask is magically admissible. If your criteria include "no blacks", would it become morally defensible to ask what color skin the prospective admin is? What about if you want to exclude Britons because you don't want any "bias against correct spelling"? You may be free to pick random criteria which have nothing to do with adminship, but that does not give you the right to go pry into peoples' private lives and ask for personal and private information. — Coren ^(talk) 15:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not about skin colour or Britishness (which of course I don't care about), this is about age. If I'm free to select my own criteria, as you say, it follows that I may ask questions pertinent to these questions, and the candidates may choose whether to reply or not. Even if the question is not allowed on RfA itself, there's nothing to prevent me from posing it on the user talk page or per e-mail, and cast my vote based on any reply I may receive. As you can see, prohibiting questions on RfA is not the solution to what you perceive as the problem. It would require a change in editors' right to select their own criteria to bring that about.  Sandstein  15:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This is where we strongly disagree. I say it does not follow that you can satisfy your prejudices (whichever they are) with questions invading the privacy of editors. — Coren ^(talk) 17:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The question is not a matter of privacy, since "over 18" is not an identifiable datum, and it is not invasive because candidates are free not to answer it.  Sandstein  17:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If they turn 18 during the RfA, they can't reasonable answer the question without revealing that they will soon be 18. Well, they could wait until they turn 18 and then answer "yes". But still, reaad what I wrote above. There are better ways to phrase this question, focusing on asking the candidates to assess their own levels of maturity, or finding ways to assess that yourself. Carcharoth (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• I fully, and strongly endorse an absolute ban on questions that requests revealing personal information— that would need to include at least name, age, sex, geographical location, religious beliefs, political views, and sexual orientations. Those questions do not, and cannot, influence past contributions from the editor and, where not outright illegal, are ethically indefensible. Any such question should be reverted on sight. — Coren ^(talk) 14:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'd never ask about sexual orientation, location, sex and so forth, but we are discussing human beings on RfA, not abstract user accounts, and some personal characteristics of human beings do have a bearing on whether or not I trust them. I reserve the right to oppose a self-identified Neo-Nazi or Neo-Stalinist on the basis of his or her political views, for instance.  Sandstein  15:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note: self-identified Neo-Nazi or Neo-Stalinist. Do you notice your own argument, right there? — Coren ^(talk) 17:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Agree. Let's stick to discussing the candidate as a Wikipedian, and not what they are in real life. how do you turn this on 15:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support banning this questions because of being disruptive. Some people want to keep their anonymity on the internet, and also because people take the answer as a reason to oppose RfA candidates. Macy 15:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Are you aware that WP:MOP, the adminship policy, allows people to support or oppose candidates for any reason that they feel is relevant with respect to the candidate's trustworthiness?  Sandstein  15:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I know the policy, but are you aware that if the question gets banned, age-based opposes may reduce or stop? :-P. Macy 15:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• If the policy states anyone can oppose for whatever reason they like, then the policy really could do with changing. I might bring this to the talk page of it. how do you turn this on 15:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• So I'm clear, whereabout in that policy does it state you can vote with whatever reason you like? how do you turn this on 15:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• As I quoted above: "Adminship is oriented to communal trust and confidence, rather than checklists and edit counts; each user will have their own way to assess their confidence in a candidates' readiness for the role."  Sandstein  15:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• As a note, please realize that my quip above about such questions being "outright illegal" is not hyperbole: in Quebec, at least, they are illegal on their face— I would expect the same everywhere in Europe (where privacy laws are strong as well), and while privacy laws are generally weaker in the Unites States it would not be unlikely that those are just as illegal in Florida. Someone should check. — Coren ^(talk) 15:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• There is something like freedom of speech on a privately owned website in the US, yes? RfA is not a job interview.  Sandstein  15:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• That may be, but given the popularity of WP, the number of minors who participate here, and the probability that there are authorities monitoring the site for those reasons (Hello detectives/special agents, etc!), I wouldn't want to be the one asking questions about people's ages. It could too easily be misinterpreted as something nefarious. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 15:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not an American, and I may lack any special sensibility that Americans may have in this regard, but I fail to see how asking people who are running for a position of responsability whether they are older than 18 is in some way "nefarious", let alone illegal.  Sandstein  15:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• I absolutely agree. No one should be forced to reveal their age (and of course, if they are, some might lie, to protect their online security), except where is it required for privacy reasons (eg CheckUser). Xclamation point 15:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• No one is forced to reveal their age. Stating that one is over 18 is not revealing one's age, and of course they are not in any way compelled to answer. They will lose very few votes not answering, it seems; and not even necessarily mine.  Sandstein  15:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • How can you possibly quantify and/or qualify the statement of "they will lose very few votes"? What you choose to !vote is not indicative of what the general masses that !vote at RfA, WP:AGF not withstanding. I'm personally willing to bet that the bureaucrats have enough sense to discard !votes based on age, but we still return to the fact that your promise is unlikely to hold water, as that seems to be one of your defense... --Izno (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• If they do lose many votes on account of that question, then that would be a sign that many users share my concerns, which would be an even better reason for asking the question.  Sandstein  15:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• The statement you made was "They will lose very few votes not answering" and not [paraphrasing] "If they lose votes, it must be a quasi-legitimate reason": This is inconsistent, and does not answer the question I posed... --Izno (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• I made that statement because I seem to be in a minority here with my opinion that age may be a relevant or determinative factor in an RfA.  Sandstein  16:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What you don't know can't hurt you. Instead of trying to take some kind of shortcut and determine a candidate's maturity/qualifications based on age, look at their contributions.--KojiDude ^(C) 18:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have taken this to the admin policy talk page - please weigh in there. Thanks how do you turn this on 16:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sandstein, you are not alone in realizing that youth is a legitimate concern. This is one of those perrenial arguments that has no end. There are a number of people in the RfA community who believe it shouldn't be an issue and try to tie the view of the rest of the world as "ageism" that is equivalent to racism/sexism/etc. They would do better to argue that specific candidates deserve the bit rather than fight a battle that they can't win. Age IS an issue, and legitimately so. I will over look it for specific individuals, but for somebody to claim otherwise is going against the general body of evidence that exists.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Rather than forbid any questions, why don't we recommend that people freely Noble lie about their answer? jmcw (talk) 10:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• If you want to see how lying to protect your privacy turns out, just as Essjay. Chillum 13:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Essjay_incident is interesting. It was not a noble lie that brought trouble but rather the abuse of position. A noble lie about age or sex or religion seems different: it would neutralize the question. jmcw (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I personally feel that the age question is very inappropriate, and would add to any request that I saw it on a suggestion that the question remains unanswered --T-rex 13:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Give up private information not related to being an admin or I oppose? That sounds out of line. It is a silly question, if you want to know how mature someone is look at their contribution history. We don't let people ask "Are you black", "Are you a Jew", or "Who are you voting for in the upcoming election", so I don't see how asking age is any better. Endorse ban on asking about private information such as age in RfA. I also need nothing at WP:MOP which prevents the community creating some standards for the questions asked. Chillum 13:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

A decision (break)

Can people please discuss this on the policy talk page from now on, as that's the page that needs changing. It seems strange to have two discussions. how do you turn this on 13:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't need to change the admin policy to change how we run RfA. This is not changing admins, but how we select them. This is the correct forum. The conversation at WT:ADMIN does seem redundant, but I do this this is the better spot. Chillum 13:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually the relevant text is on the admin policy page (have a look at the discussion to see which text). The way we choose admins is documented in the policy, and needs changing there, not here. how do you turn this on 13:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I already read it. "Adminship is oriented to communal trust and confidence, rather than checklists and edit counts; each user will have their own way to assess their confidence in a candidates' readiness for the role" in no way prevents RfA from deciding what questions are inappropriate. It does not say they can take any action or ask any question they want to assess their confidence. It says they can have their own way, not that they can act inappropriately doing so. They can have their own way without asking personal questions. No conflict with policy. Chillum 13:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright. So how do you suggest we get consensus to ban such questions being asked? how do you turn this on 14:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You're not going to get consensus to ban these questions, that's the futility of the issue. Even people who don't think the question should be asked, such as myself, won't support banning it. The best you can hope for is consensus to add a note to such questions advising the candidate not to answer. There are other questions, such as the one regarding AOR, that the community hates, but there is no consensus to ban it. You're not going to get consensus to ignore !votes based on age, because too many people acknowledge the validity of the concern (even if they don't necessarily share it.) Even if you think you have consensus here, these are questions that are bigger than RfA and would have to be brought forth to the broader community.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are we even discussing banning serious questions? How many times has this been brought up and dismissed just in the last few weeks? If you find a question so offensive, refuse to answer it or address it with the questioner on their talkpage. We don't need to add rules on the type and style of questions beyond the common sense limitations we already have, which are typically enforced by bureaucrats. Avruch ^T 15:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, no need to ban any type of serious question. Some editors equate youth with immaturity, others don't. I see no problem with attempting to gather relevant information while making a decision. We don't need to ban this particular question and the consensus will (likely) never want to do so, and we don't need the instruction creep that will occur if we start making lists of questions that cannot be asked. Useight (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Every time this topic comes up there is more and more opposition to the age question and less and less support for it. I think in time we will come to a consensus not to allow questions of such a personal nature. Chillum 16:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe people are still clinging to the belief trying to find out as much as possible about a candidate is wrong. Given we've just discovered a one-time admin here, who had admin, bureaucrat and checkuser rights on other projects, was in fact an identity thief who ran a fairly sophisticated sock-farm (oh, who had, in real life, created models that form the basis of economic theory in many western nations), surely we need to know more, not less? For if and when that situation reaches the press, there will be calls for aliases and anonymous editing to be banned outright, as well as removing any editor who cannot be held to account legally George The Dragon (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the folks who have opposed it in the past just don't see the need to come in and repeat themselves every few days. I can see their point, and I think if it ever comes to the point that someone posts a question of some sort and its removed as "banned" it will again become clear that banning serious questions is not going to have the support of the community.Avruch ^T 16:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

George: assuming you're referring to Poetlister, he was banned here for over a year and never held admin rights. I don't see how asking how old someone is will somehow make rouge admins an impossibility. As has been said, they could just lie. It's a useless exercise. how do you turn this on 16:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong about that. Poetlister held admin rights here and on other projects, he was a bureaucrat and a checkuser elsewhere as well. Avruch ^T 17:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

He never held admin rights as the user Poetlister on this project. Whether he did as another user is another question - did he? I don't know. I know he held rights elsewhere, but he never got higher than the role of "user" here. He was banned for ages here, looking at his block log. how do you turn this on 17:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It isn't really relevant to this discussion, but yes the person held admin rights under another account. The ban was for sockpuppeting, including with an admin account on en.wp. Avruch ^T 17:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What I'm saying is, asking how old they are isn't going to stop a rouge admin from getting through is it? how do you turn this on 17:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean rogue or rouge? Je suis une rouge admin. <grin> Age is irrelevant. If someone lacks the requisite qualities, it will show or not regardless of the age of the candidate. There is an age below which a candidate simply could not pass an RFA. That age must differ from person to person. But it should be evident in the gruelling process we now impose on candidates. How articulate and clear thinking would most 6 year olds come across? How many 12 year olds would have the patience to gain the experience? We gain nothing by asking an impertinent question of someone seemingly qualified otherwise. Soon we will be looking at the other end of the age question. Who among us will be the first to be put out to pasture because of encroaching senility? Is there a max age beyond which we would question the ability of a user to think clearly and apply policy effectively? Will failing eyesight become a concern over misinterpreted dif's or a misconstrued edit? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 04:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm torn. On the one hand, I'm uncomfortable that candidates are being asked questions of a more personal nature; on the other hand, I'm also uncomfortable "banning" people from asking questions just because I don't like their question. I'm sure most of you have noticed that, in the real world, applications for positions of trust pretty much always include an age field as par for the course? Wikipedia seems to be the only large, mainstream organization I've ever seen where "adulthood doesn't matter" is any sort of rallying cry... I'm not saying that's good or bad, but I am saying it's keenly unusual. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree most with this comment here. I also agree with Sandstein's insistence that questions shouldn't be banned for RFAs, each user can use their own criteria. Determining if someone is an adult is a valid question that, though some may not like, still could have a place with many users for determining support. --Banime (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Legality

I would be very interested to see any actual evidence to support the notion that asking questions about such subjects as age or political views is illegal in any jurisdiction of a modern nation. This isn't a job interview, there is no determination of benefits or dispensation of a legal entitlement, so I don't see how in any respect such a question could be illegal. Avruch ^T 14:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

In Quebec, at least, this would be considered a job interview; the position is that of an unpaid volunteer, but there is a selection process. But that wouldn't even be necessary: the laws against discrimination here are very strict and anything which is open to the public has an open application process open to the public may not use any such criteria (mind you, age is a special case insofar as that specific non-discrimination section is tempered with a limitation that laws about age limits are allowed and it is legal to ask one's age in order to apply them (buying booze, for instance) — but that limitation is not relevant here). — Coren ^(talk) 15:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Editing is open to the public, and doesn't use any such criteria. Adminship is a private matter; we have opted to make it open, but it is still a private matter, and laws like those stated are not applicable. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What a horrible reading of the law. Badger Drink (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I just realized a possible cause of confusion: it's important to note that the US Bill of rights, the example so many people are familiar with, gives specific garantees of freedom from the governement. I.e., the governement may not make laws that curtail those freedoms. Many other bills of rights (Quebec's being amongst them) gives to garantees of freedom from anyone; governement, businesses and individuals alike. — Coren ^(talk) 15:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that you could apply discrimination laws to adminship on Wikipedia - you have to be deprived of something meaningful, i.e. suffer an injury of legal import, before you can establish a discrimination claim. I don't think that discrimination which could exclude a protected class from adminship on Wikipedia rises to that level. And I don't see how the US constitution enters into it at all. Avruch ^T 16:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

To make myself clear, since I've commented several times in this discussion in the last little while - I'm not against asking such questions in RfA. I don't think the candidates are or should be required to answer them either. I'm not against people taking age into account when deciding whether to support or oppose a candidate, but I don't think it should be the primary attribute they weigh or even a major consideration in the face of a long history of conduct to review on Wikipedia. But it is a factor that fills in holes when the history is brief or debatable. I don't think we should get into prescribing what elements people are allowed to weigh in their judgments, and while I accept that many young editors (including most of the folks posting to this page) find it unfair -- you don't here, or anywhere else, have the right to be free from being offended. Avruch ^T 16:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree against you in principle, were it not for the fact that not answering one of those putatively "optional" questions pretty much guarantees sinking your RfA; making them quite mandatory in practice— there is no genuine right to not answer in other words. — Coren ^(talk) 21:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

New proposal

We ban the discussion to ban this perenial topic.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It's only perennial because people haven't liked the idea in the past. If we were to set up a poll now, we'd get a much more accurate idea of whether such a ban is wanted by the community. how do you turn this on 17:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose banning the discussion. First, as I said above that question is disruptive and it violates user's privacy. I support having a privacy policy against this questions, not just because it crashes RFAs, it's because in the future we may get more discrimination than before, and this needs to be resolved before it gets worst. Macy 23:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Obviously the irony was missed on you...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Agree strongly with Balloonman. Ban the discussion to prevent incessant discussion and endless arguments. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• I couldn't have put it better myself, Balloonman ;-)    SIS  08:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I think banning people from talking about something is a very chilling idea. I can't tell if this proposal is actually serious though. how do you turn this on 13:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
    • If you feel banning discussion is harmful, why do you seem to support doing so in the threads above? – Luna Santin (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

counter proposal

That we ban the discussion to ban the discussion to ban this perennial topic. <tongue in cheek> Dlohcierekim 03:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

counter proposal to the counter proposal to the new proposal

Ban this perennial topic semi-annually. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? how do you turn this on 14:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not? It doesn't have to be semiannually, per se. I'm also open to Tuesday of every third week between 2:33pm and 7:56pm. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

At this rate someone draw me a mathematical set to make sense of it all... - Mailer Diablo 17:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone give a brief summary of all the above. WP:TLDR.:P Thanks.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 02:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Stats

Hi all,

As some are aware, over the past few weeks, months, I've been updating the old RfA archives, in doing so for preparation for some interesting stats, located here. These are details of every successful request for adminship going back to February 2004, when the idea of adding the tally was introduced. There are earlier requests, but none of these had numbered votes, so wouldn't fit very well.

It currently needs filling in for a lot of requests, and probably has a lot of mistakes. Anyone who is interested in helping to add/correct various bits of data on it, please do help! Do note that the tallies do not always reflect what's on the actual RfA, since I got reverted attempting to correct those, so please don't fix them. Otherwise, I'd appreciate people updating/correcting their own/nominee's/whoever's entries, so we can get this list accurate and filled.

Some notes, if you intend to assist:

• All times are in UTC.
• When determining the day a user became active, I based it on when they started making edits on a daily basis.
• The Days column is how many days they were active on the day they were promoted. I used this useful tool. Don't include the end date option.
• Edit counts are either mentioned in the nomination, on the nomination somewhere, or in more recent ones, on the talk page. If it isn't there, it isn't there.
• For co-nominations, only the first user is included.

I recommend a good internet connection to edit that page as well. Thanks for anyone who helps. Majorly ^talk 16:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Majorly, for your effort. The list is very useful indeed. --Meno25 (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow! That's great work, Majorly! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Now for the RfB ones! ;) --Cameron* 19:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

RfB should be a lot easier since there's only a few of those. Majorly ^talk 19:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Great work, Majorly. This'll come in handy :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 20:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ya, this is interesting. I can imagine, 1000 years in the future, people visiting the "Wikipedia Museum" and looking at a copy of Tillwe's RfA on the wall. They'll say things like, "Look, Mom, Only 25 participants!" Lazulilasher (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added this to my list of things to do when closing RfAs. Good work. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

All I see is some raw data. What statistical analyses are being proposed for this data? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not complete yet. I'll be creating stats when it's complete (such as highest support, lowest edit count, shortest time here, who has nominated the most times etc). Majorly ^talk 22:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That'll no doubt be interesting, but I was more wondering about a statistical analysis of the data. For instance, a correlation between edit count and support votes. On the hypothesis that higher edit counts may be an influence on more editors becoming aware of and becoming involved in the RfA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, stuff like that can certainly be looked at too. But it can only be done once all the data is there. I'll add a load more data tomorrow hopefully. Majorly ^talk 22:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm fully behind your attempt to get some data together, and I congratulate you for what you've achieved. I look forward to having the full data set available to be mined for hidden treasures. Now, if only you could do a similar thing for the failed RfAs ... :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There's some incomplete data here. In the future, once this is done, I intend to create data for all bureaucrat requests, and some other "significant" RfAs (including SNOW RfAs wouldn't be useful imo). Majorly ^talk 22:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have started a replica table for RFBs at User:Useight/RFB Stats. I should have it completed by the end of the evening. Useight (talk) 03:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Well, all the RFBs are in the table, a couple more columns need to be finished. Useight (talk) 04:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's an interesting statistic. The English wikipedia has 1,590 administrators administrating 10,455 active users.[1] Police state or what? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You got a problem with police states? Wanna get blocked, mister? In other words, yeah, you're right. Find a good dozen or so editors that haven't screwed up enough, and at the same time, have been here long enough, to pass RFA. RFA sucks, but the quiet, sleuthful, non-controversial (read:non-article writers) will easily get through. We need more of them (me) !!!!. In other words, if you don't have solution, we don't have a problem....Keeper ǀ 76 23:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Malleus, no fair comparing total admins to active accounts; both should be active, or both should be total. Also, keep in mind the 10,455 does not count any IP editors at all. --barneca (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I was just about to say that. Its a rather inaccurate account for day to day operations. Synergy 23:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. The number of active editors has been established; so what do you believe the number of active administrators to be if you don't agree with the figure of 1,590 given? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand used to have a page about "active admins" somewhere that he updated with his bot, but I don't remember where it was (someone will come up with a link, I'm sure). I seem to vaguely recall that about 1/3 of admins were active within a given month, but that's such a hazy recollection I wouldn't put too much stock in it. The bigger issue is the uncounted number of IP editors in a given month. --barneca (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not the bigger issue at all, as most of those IPs are dealt with by the active editors. Just look above to see in what low regard that kind of work is held in anyway. A third sounds about right to me, which means that there's one active administrator for every five active editors. Does that seem sensible to you? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be 1:20, but I get your point. However, I know as a admin I spend a very serious portion of my time dealing with IP editors (more than half, I suspect, though I haven't checked), so I wouldn't discount them as you do. --barneca (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Your assumption that I discount IP editors is very far from the truth. Take a look at the thread above this one. My assertion is that IP editors are dealt with by and large by non-administrators, apart from the delivery of the final coup de grace of course. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That hasn't been my own experience, can't speak for other admins. Anyway, something is off in this analysis, even if i can't put my finger on where it is, because I know I deal with way more than 20 other editors every month. Plus, admins have to police each other, which is 10 times harder than policing a normal human... --barneca (talk) 03:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought admins were janitors, not a security force? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You can't trap me, Malleus, because you're preaching to the choir. I don't buy the janitor metaphor either. --barneca (talk) 03:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Like I said before. If you guys don't like the concept, than change all of the icons and userboxes from a mop to something that makes more sense. Then I'll remove it from my essay. Synergy 03:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Eh, the janitor metaphor fits in a way, a janitor is supposed to be a behind-the-scenes job that just focuses on keeping things clean, organized, and working smoothly. To that extent, the metaphor fits. But one will be hard pressed to find a metaphor that can accurately describe the job of an administrator, just because the scope of administrative duties is so diverse and sometimes complicated that I think the it is just too unique to be easily compared by a simple metaphor. Just my random thought of the day...:) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 03:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't readily think of many real-life jobs that can be immediately compared with Wikipedia admins, because our admins (ideally, at least) have additional powers, but not really additional authority - in real ife, the two tend to go hand in hand. Perhaps a combination of a janitor and a security guard is the best metaphor - and I'm now thinking of that bit from Scrubs with the "knife-wrench". ~ mazca ^{t | c} 09:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(<<<outdent) I think of the "mop" image as an ideal to strive towards: to remind admins of the virtue of humility: not to give undue weight to their own opinions about situations. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Rick Bot updates WP:LOA daily with the number of active admins. Currently it is 976. -SpuriousQ (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The ratio is probably a holdover, to when the connection between "any trusted user" and "administrator" was more close. I think that was the idea to begin with, and while that clearly isn't the way candidates are measured these days it probably has had an effect on the stats proportionate to the length of time it was. Avruch ^T 01:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's another way to phrase the question: if you choose an edit at random, what is the probability that the edit is by an admin? I would guess that admins on average are much more active than the average "active" non-admin, so this question would give a higher ratio of admins to non-admins than just counting the numbers of users. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Good job on the stats, Majorly. Useful work, interesting to look over the numbers. Oops: I reverted many of the tally changes you made, citing "consensus" at AN/I, then afterwards noticed that the person who closed the AN/I discussion had said "Content dispute should be settled through RFA talk page and dispute resolution - i.e. not through edit-warring. ..." so perhaps my reverting was premature. I think there are various ways to count the votes and that we should leave the closed discussions as they are were^{(02:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC))}, but I wouldn't oppose a notation being added (per Franamax in that discussion) if the original tallies are also left and the new notation is clearly marked as being such, e.g. in square brackets "[Later analysis gives a tally of...]", or outside the top and bottom discussion-closing markers, or on the talk page. I also agree with brenneman in that discussion: it was OK for Majorly to be bold per BRD. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I meant "leave the closed discussions as they were", not "as they are". In other words, if there's no further comment I expect I'll revert the rest of them too. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It's fascinating to see all the RfAs in one place like that - good work, Majorly. We had a suggestion at the RfA Review (Now Ongoing) (</plug>) that, rather than setting minimum editcounts or months of service before someone can go to RfA, we simply post the averages of successful candidates. The implication is that editors who are well below those figures are not as likely to succeed as editors at or above them. Obviously, other factors are present - several of the last 50 successful candidates had less than 4000 edits, while the averages were in the 9,000's - but it is interesting to see how stable the averages are over those last 50 candidates. I posted the analysis at User:Ultraexactzz/RfA Success, for reference. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you add the edit counts for the ones you analysed to the stats page? Thanks Majorly ^talk 13:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Done, back to Werdna. I didn't add account creation or first edit dates, since I didn't record them - I just kept a count of the account's age in months, from first edit to nom. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist notice for RfA Review

Now that the RfA Review is accepting responses to its second questionnaire, I thought it might be a good idea to post a Watchlist notice. Since the previous such notice was discussed here, I want to make sure there's a consensus for the notice. My proposal would be to have a general notice now, for two weeks, followed by a specific "The deadline to submit responses to the RfA Review is..." for a week, and then clear the notice. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultraexactzz (talk • contribs) 14:12, September 19, 2008 (UTC)

Have we a deadline? I be wonderin' that for a while. 'Twould be good to put that up first, methinks. Cheers, me hearties. lifebaka++ 19:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The last phase started on 12 June and was closed on 1 July. Since this phase started on 12 September, and there are more questions, I had proposed the idea of closing it on 10 October (4 weeks later, 3 weeks from now). Also, arrrr. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Admin Bots

We could use more input on the proposed admin bot policy at WT:BOT --Chris 02:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

AFD Stats for RFA (mainly at least, I can't imagine any other uses)

Someone asked for this a while ago, when I unveiled my RFA tool. I've yet to get into what a user has kept, deleted, etc, but, I've cobbled together a script to reveal what AFD's a user has started. Since someone here asked for this, I thought I'd unveil it here, too. Please see http://toolserver.org/~sql/afd.php . Without going into detecting votes, I'd love input on how I could improve this. SQL^{Query me!} 04:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I found one problem with it, take Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arcel in which the result was delete but later another article about a different subject by the same name was created so it lists the result of the AfD as 'keep' instead of what it was; 'delete'. I think you could fix this by checking the deletion of the page between the day the AfD was started and, say, 10 days later to determine the result of the AfD. - Icewedge (talk) 04:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, as best as it can tell, it still exists, and is not a redirect, I'm not sure how to detect a merge without looking at the page content... SQL^{Query me!} 06:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to do merges either - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikijunior (2nd nomination) shows up as a keep. naerii 05:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

See above SQL^{Query me!} 06:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"Inaccurate" is splet wrnog in the preamble of the output. The output pastes clickably into Excel, but it would be nice if it columnized also. Nice tool - no comments on the actual functionality (unlike the other posters here who have actual substantive comments :). Franamax (talk) 06:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

D'oh! I'll go fix the spelling, and, maybe make it table-ized :) Thanks! SQL^{Query me!} 06:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad tool at all, could weed out some silly nominators (i.e. that all end up in keep) I guess...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna see if I can manage to get a tool running that can sorta detect keeps and deletes. Xclamation point 11:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say lose the percentages. Just plain misleading despite your sensible disclaimer at the top. Of the four "probably kept" at mine, one was a recreation with entirely different material, two were procedural listings of incomplete nominations, and one was kept, giving me a dismal 64% deletion rate. Good tool in general, though. Darkspots (talk) 11:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually seeing how a few nomination profiles goes may be interesting, especially if itemised at the bottom anyway. Also voting ones as well :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Moar Admin Bots

Wikipedia:An#Approval_of_FA_Template_Protection_Bot, just incase you haven't seen it yet --Chris 12:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)