Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship and Nagaragawa Convention Center: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Coordinates: 35°26′28″N 136°46′07″E / 35.44121°N 136.768558°E / 35.44121; 136.768558
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Ron Ritzman (talk | contribs)
75,721 edits
 
Paralympic (talk | contribs)
5,195 edits
mNo edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Infobox Venue
{{RfA Navigation}}
| name = Nagaragawa Convention Center<br>長良川国際会議場
{| style="width:100%; background:transparent;"
| image = [[Image:Nagaragawa Convention Center 1.JPG|250px]]
| {{User:SQL/RfX Report}}
| image_caption = The Nagaragawa Convention Center
| valign="top" | {{Shortcut|WT:RFA}}
| nickname =
|}
| location = 2695-2 Nagara Fukumitsu<br>[[Gifu, Gifu|Gifu]], [[Gifu Prefecture]]<br>[[Japan]] [[〒]]502-0817
{{archive box|<small>For discussions from June 2003 till just before what's in this page, see [[/Archives]]. RFA discussions before '''June 2003''' took place on a [[Wikipedia:mailing lists|mailing list]]. RFA-related discussions may also be found at the [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard|Bureaucrats' noticeboard]].<small>}}{{User:MiszaBot/config
| coordinates = {{coord|35.44121|136.768558|type:landmark_region:JP|display=inline,title}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
| type = [[Convention center]]
|counter = 141
| genre =
|algo = old(5d)
| built = 1995
|archive = Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive %(counter)d
| opened = [[September 1]], [[1995]]
| renovated =
| expanded =
| closed =
| demolished =
| owner = [[Gifu, Gifu|Gifu]]
| construction_cost=
| former_names =
| seating_type =
| seating_capacity = 1,689
| website = [http://www.g-ncc.jp/ Homepage] {{ja icon}}
}}
}}
__TOC__


The {{nihongo|'''Nagaragawa Convention Center'''|長良川国際会議場|Nagaragawa Kokusai Kaigijō}} is a multi-purpose convention center in the city of [[Gifu, Gifu|Gifu]], [[Gifu Prefecture]], [[Japan]]. The name literally translates to '''Nagara River International Convention Center''', but the official English translation drops "international."
== Notnow plus 1 ==


Along with the [[Gifu Memorial Center]], the [[Nagaragawa Sports Plaza]] and [[Mirai Hall]], it is part of the [[World Event and Convention Complex Gifu]].<ref name="gg"/>
Ok, I think we need to come up with a minimum guideline wherein we close RfA's on sight... something such as "If the user has fewer than 1000 edits AND 3 months of experience, the RfA will be closed automatically." I think we should also support a notion wherein we would suggest deleting the RfA from newbies. I don't think that having a premature RfA should be used against a candidate down the road---I suspect that some people request adminship without realizing that there are certain criteria we expect from candidates.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 23:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


==Construction==
:Why not just let the RfA run for a few hours to make the newbie feel special? '''«''' <font face="Tahoma">[[User:Diligent Terrier|<span style=color:DarkOliveGreen>'''Diligent Terrier'''</span>]] [[User talk:Diligent Terrier|<span style=color:Gray>'''<small>[talk]</small>''']]</span></font> 23:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
The convention center was built to promote Gifu as a good location for large conventions and has many enticements to attract both domestic and international groups to hold events in the city. The famed architect [[Tadao Ando]] designed the structure,<ref name="gg">[http://www.g-ncc.jp/er-gene.html General Guidance]. Nagaragawa Convention Center. Accessed [[July 2]], [[2008]].</ref> giving it a unique, egg-shaped look from the outside, making it immediately recognizable.
::Because if you do so, people who come later might [[WP:BITE|bite]] him and that will not benefit us if he gets bitten. Balloonman is right but I think lower criteria are in order, maybe everyone with less than 500 edits and 6 weeks experience... '''[[User:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #AC0000">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #1F3F53">Why</span>]]''' 23:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
::I 100% support Balloonman's minimum requirment. There are too many idiots wasting their time setting up an RfA when they have less than a hundred edits. There is ''never'' going to be an RfA that passes with less than 1000 edits and < 3 months experience. Honestly, we shouldn't kid ourselves by not having a guideline, and should save people the [[WP:NOTNOW]] going on their permanent wiki-record forever. "''But Koji, what if he's a really good editor and it's always possible and you're being too bitey and deh di deh di deh deh di deh diiiiiii--''" Oh, shut up, look up impossible on wiktionary and you'll see a little picture of a succesful RfA with 70 edits and 4 weeks experience.--[[User:KojiDude|<font color="00CD32">Koji</font>]][[User talk:KojiDude|<font color="green">Dude</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/KojiDude|<sup><font color="90EE90">(C)</font></sup>]] 23:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Well...if they were 35 perfect complicated Non-Admin-AfD-closes, 10 GAs written and 25 perfect talk page entries which convinced several dozen people completely... Yeah, okay, it is highly unlikely - but not impossible ;-) '''[[User:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #AC0000">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #1F3F53">Why</span>]]''' 23:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
:::'''I support this idea''' as long as there is an extra-kind message left on the applicants talk page encouraging them to apply again in a few months providing they've obtained some more experience. —<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2px">'''[[User:Cyclonenim|''Cyclonenim'']]'''</font><sup><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="1">[[User_talk:Cyclonenim|T@lk?]]</font></sup> 23:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with Balloonman's proposal. Just be certain that a personal and none customized message is left on the talk page explaining the situation in detail. [[User:Wisdom89|'''<font color="#660000">Wisdom89</font>''']] <sub>([[User_talk:Wisdom89|<small><sub><font color="#17001E">T</font></sub></small>]] / [[Special:Contributions/Wisdom89|<small><sup><font color="#17001E">C</font></sup></small>]])</sub> 23:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


It opened on [[September 1]], [[1995]], and is managed by the city's Public Hall Management Group.
This would be a ''de facto'' change to the RfA policy, in other words: now there would be a minimum standard for an RfA whereas now there are "no official" minimums. I support such a modification and the deletion of the premature RfA is it would clarify the process for newcomers. [[User:Lazulilasher|Lazulilasher]] ([[User talk:Lazulilasher|talk]]) 00:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


==Facilities==
:I support Balloonman's proposal. It's a good idea. In such closures, perhaps a standard talk page template could be used to inform users of the minimum requirements and encourage them to reapply later. The template could also include a couple tips, like getting experience in admin areas like XfDs and AIV. Oh, and links to [[WP:GRFA]] and [[WP:PREP]]. [[User:Okiefromokla|Okiefromokla]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Okiefromokla|questions?]]</sup></small> 00:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
[[Image:NCC & GMH 01.JPG|thumb|right|The convention center with the Gifu Miyako Hotel in the background]]
The main hall of the convention center is the largest in all of Gifu Prefecture. It is mainly used for concerts and as a central location for conventions. With an area near {{Convert|1206|m2|ft2|0|abbr=on}}, it seats 1,689 people, but the floors and walls are adjustable, offering many difference configurations.<ref name="gg"/><ref name="cvb"/> It was named one of Japan's Top 100 Venues for musical performances.


There is also an international conference room located in the dome portion of the egg-like structure. A portion of the wall can open up to a view of the [[Nagara River]], [[Mount Kinka (Gifu)|Mount Kinka]] and [[Gifu Castle]].<ref name="gg"/> The room is suitable for mid-sized international conventions and can provide simultaneous interpretations in six languages.<ref name="cvb">[http://www.gifucvb.or.jp/en/convention/support/sisetsu.shtml Convention Support]. Gifu Convention and Visitors Bureau. Accessed [[July 2]], [[2008]].</ref> There are also small, medium and large meeting rooms available for more private meetings.
:Laz is probably right though, while those of us who are regulars/semi-regulars know that a nom without 1000 edits AND 3 months experience will never pass, it would technically be a change in policy.... currently, there is no official requirement. But the reality is otherwise. I think 1000 edits AND 3 months is so low of a criteria, that nobody would object to it. But there is the second half of the proposal that I would like to get some feedback on: Deleting premature RfA's. For example, [[User:Dendodge]] in the section above mentions that someday he would be interested in becoming an admin. Den has been around for about 7 months and has about 7K edits. If he were to go up for an RfA, people would evaluate him on his edits/credentials. Unfortunately, Den made an RfA during his first month on wikipedia when he had about 100 total edits. Because of that edit, when he first came to wikipedia, people will judge him differently. It changes the way people will evaluate his edits and the way they evaluate him today. This is a shame. Thus, the second half of my proposal, that we delete (or at least allow new users to request such RfA's) to be deleted. I don't think failed RfA's should be deleted, but this is a special circumstance with the intention of preventing biting.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 00:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
::That's why I would support the proposal: it essentially clarifies what is already a policy. The advantage of this would be that we would then be able to more actively discourage newbies from being bitten/opposed/etc. The disadvantage is that it would no longer mean that "everyone" is eligible to apply for the position. I think the advantage outweighs the disadvantage. Additionally, we would be moving toward a more standardized schema in the RfA process. [[User:Lazulilasher|Lazulilasher]] ([[User talk:Lazulilasher|talk]]) 01:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
If we were to create a minimum requirement, one of the possibilities is a talk page template to give to users whose RFAs are prematurely closed, as I said above. I realize this idea probably wouldn't gain much ground, but I've just created an example of what this would look like [[User:Okiefromokla/Rejected RFA template|here]]. Any opinions? [[User:Okiefromokla|Okiefromokla]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Okiefromokla|questions?]]</sup></small> 01:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


The total floor space for the main hall and the eight other rooms is {{Convert|2332|m2|ft2|0|abbr=on}}, allowing seating for over 2,400 people.<ref name="cvb"/>
:First, I do not like this sentence: ''However, the community has established a set of minimum requirements before users can be considered to become administrators: In general, editors must have at least 1,000 edits and over 3 months of experience.'' Upon thinking about it more, I think it should be worded more to the effect of: ''While the community has not established a minimum set of requirements, admins are expected to have experience and familiarity with Wikipedia policies and procedures. To this end, candidates with fewer than 1,000 edits and 3 months experience are automatically removed.'' I prefer this wording because it clearly states that there is no minimum. If we leave the wording about 3 months and 1000 edits, people will start to argue that 3 months and 1000 edits is the accepted minimum. It isn't. It is simply a level that is so low that the candidacy has a zero percent chance of passing. I'd also rather see something added to the page about nominating somebody as a preventive rather than a response to something that was already done.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 01:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC) EDIT: OR "This is not a minimum guideline to pass an RfA, but rather to apply for an RfA."---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 01:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
::I rather like Balloonman's proposal. Yes, a change of policy would be required but it should be doable. I would actually go further and introduce a rule that very new users should not vote in RFAs (say with a minimum of 3 weeks of having a WP named account at least 250 edits required). Regarding removing very premature RFAs, it will probably not be necessary if the 1000edits/3months requirement is introduced. However, there is another approach that can be used in parallel or maybe instead of a mandatory 1000edits/3months requirement: a mandatory pre-RfA consultation with a crat (not a pre-approval but a consultation). One of the real problems with the current RfA system is that sometimes good editors are so turned off by their negative RfA experience that they leave the project altogether as a result. In my observations this usually happens with relatively new editors (around 6-7 months or so) who did not quite know what the RfA expectations are and were unprepared for the kind of scrutiny that an RfA could bring. If a crat were to take a look at the candidate's record before an RfA and offer some basic advice in terms of the basic strengths/weaknesses of the case (which are usually easy to spot since the general con arguments in RfAs are fairly standard), this would probably significantly cut down on the number of unsuccessful RfA attempts. I think that something like that would even be useful for RfA candidates who are not self-noms. Sometimes if one gets nominated by their good friend, that friend may have a bit of a blind spot in relation to the candidate and not see a potential problem. So an equivalent of a pre-RFA [[WP:3O]] would be useful. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 01:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


==Access==
Will the change of policy be retrospective, so any admins who passed without meeting the current requirements will have to be reconfirmed? [[User:George The Dragon|George The Dragon]] ([[User talk:George The Dragon|talk]]) 01:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
[[Gifu Bus]] provides public transportation from both [[JR Central|JR]] [[Gifu Station]] and [[Meitetsu Gifu Station]] downtown. Riders can get off at either the "Nagaragawa Kokusai Kaigijō Kitaguchi" or the "Nagaragawa Kokusai Kaigijō-mae" bus stop.
:This isn't a policy... it would be more of a guideline. Plus, anybody who passed previously, even if it was a policy would still qualify under IAR and community consensus.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 01:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


==External links==
:Would it not be easier (and I'm really thinking aloud here) to change the system so candidates can't transclude their own RFAs? Make it so they have to approach an admin, who can at that stage "NOTNOW" the request? Of course, they would be entitled to seek a second opinion. While this would create some more work for admins, it could potentially lessen the work at the main RFA area [[User:George The Dragon|George The Dragon]] ([[User talk:George The Dragon|talk]]) 02:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
{{Commonscat|Nagaragawa Convention Center}}
::That idea has been proposed and rejected...repeatedly.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 02:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
*[http://www.g-ncc.jp/ Nagaragawa Convention Center] {{ja icon}}


==References==
::(edit conflict) I see where you're coming from, George. The difficulty I envision with that point, is that it is restricting admin nominations to admins. Although I doubt this would be harmful to the project, I do see objections to that notion. I like Ballonman's proposal because it codifies an existing (if not written) guideline and allows premature RfA's to be removed quickly and painlessly with the least amount of undue damage to a fragile newcomer. [[User:Lazulilasher|Lazulilasher]] ([[User talk:Lazulilasher|talk]]) 02:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
{{Reflist}}


[[Category:Gifu, Gifu]]
::Balloonman, I didn't really like the sentence you pointed out either. Yours is better. It's certainly not a final draft. If we were to consider using a template, I encourage anyone who can improve it to do so. See [[User:Okiefromokla/Rejected RFA template]]. [[User:Okiefromokla|Okiefromokla]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Okiefromokla|questions?]]</sup></small> 03:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
[[Category:Visitor attractions in Gifu Prefecture]]
[[Category:Music venues in Japan]]
[[Category:Convention centers in Japan]]
[[Category:Tadao Ando buildings]]
[[Category:1995 architecture]]


[[ja:長良川国際会議場]]
If we start doing this, should we tag the NOTNOW RfA's with {{[[Template:G7|G7]]}}?--[[User:KojiDude|<font color="00CD32">Koji</font>]][[User talk:KojiDude|<font color="green">Dude</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/KojiDude|<sup><font color="90EE90">(C)</font></sup>]] 14:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
:No. I think notnow RfA's should be deletable upon the users request. Kind of like a user talk page... but only notnow RfA's. If a person fails an RfA, they can't get rid of that history. The idea is to prevent future complications for somebody who in their eagerness to help the project applied for adminship early on. I don't think we should ever unilaterally delete an RfA. Also, this would need to be accepted by the community as a whole---in the past people's RfA history's had to be shown. I just think that it is not right to do so. ---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 15:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think if we do this, you'll see people nominating on their 1,000th edit or their 3 month anniversary, and they'll think they're entitled to adminship then. When they don't receive it, they won't understand why not. [[User:Ral315|Ral315]] ([[User talk:Ral315|talk]]) 03:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
:That's why I think it is important to get the wording right. How about, ''While the community has not established a minimum set of requirements, admins are expected to have experience and familiarity with Wikipedia policies and procedures. To this end, candidates with fewer than 1,000 edits and 3 months experience are automatically removed. Before running for adminship, one should be familiar with current expectations which are much higher than the 1000 edit/3 month guideline to apply.''---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 04:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
::Too restrictive imho. How about: ''While the community has not established a minimum set of requirements, admins are expected to have experience and familiarity with Wikipedia policies and procedures. With this in mind, requests of users with fewer than 1,000 edits and 3 months experience will almost <s>ever</s> always be closed as [[WP:NOTNOW]] and thus should be avoided. Before running for adminship, one should be familiar with current expectations, which are generally much higher than the 1000 edit/3 month threshold.''? '''[[User:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #AC0000">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #1F3F53">Why</span>]]''' 07:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Changed ever to always in your above statement... I think that's what you meant.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 07:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Yes, sorry. Thanks for the correction :-) '''[[User:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #AC0000">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #1F3F53">Why</span>]]''' 07:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::Added "generally" up there as there may people who have 1000/3month criteria... rare, but possible. Gernally, also reiterates that the criteria is not firm.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 17:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I support the concept of creating a guideline and like the way it's developing. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller|talk]]) 11:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

'''Oppose''' Minimum guideline? 1000 edits? I wonder what the minimum will be in One year? Three years? Five years? Creep creep creep creep. "All we're doing is raising the minimum slightly!". Plus, edit counts are the worst way to evaluate someone. Everyone knows a snow when they see one. You don't need to codify this. --[[User:Hammersoft|Hammersoft]] ([[User talk:Hammersoft|talk]]) 14:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
:The goal isn't to prevent snow, but rather to prevent BITE.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 21:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::The way to prevent BITE is to not make uncivil nasty comments on newbies' RfAs. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#B05427">Majorly</span>]]''' <sup>''[[User talk:Majorly|<span style="color:black">talk</span>]]''</sup> 21:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

===part 2===
Ok, I live the wording provided by SOWHY above, so the question then falls to the second half of the proposal: That we allow NOTNOW RFA's to be deleted upon the users request? Any comments or thoughts on this before taking it to Village Pump?---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 17:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
:Perhaps it would be best if we presented the option to the candidate as part of the notnow template? [[User:Lazulilasher|Lazulilasher]] ([[User talk:Lazulilasher|talk]]) 17:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

===At village pump===
[[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfA_wording_change]]---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 07:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

===Poor idea===
This is a dreadful idea. The only reason good candidates fail with fewer than 1000 edits/3 months is because people like Balloonman insist on opposing them for that very reason! 1000 good edits and 3 months is plenty of experience. The way to solve this "problem" is to start evaluating editors on their edits, not their edit counts. We do ''not'' need a guideline. Thank you. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#B05427">Majorly</span>]]''' <sup>''[[User talk:Majorly|<span style="color:black">talk</span>]]''</sup> 14:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
:Nice ad hominid attack majorly... I had more respect for you than that... The goal is to prevent SNOW candidates that end up getting BITEN by going for premature RfA. A person with 1000 edits and fewer than 3 months has no chance of passing due to lack of experience.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 21:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::I disagree 1000 edits and 3 months is "lack of experience". Just because you are tough on candidates doesn't mean everyone else is. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#B05427">Majorly</span>]]''' <sup>''[[User talk:Majorly|<span style="color:black">talk</span>]]''</sup> 21:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:::In the last 200 or so RfAs, how many candidates passed/stood a chance with less than 1000 edits? [[User:Wisdom89|'''<font color="#660000">Wisdom89</font>''']] <sub>([[User_talk:Wisdom89|<small><sub><font color="#17001E">T</font></sub></small>]] / [[Special:Contributions/Wisdom89|<small><sup><font color="#17001E">C</font></sup></small>]])</sub> 22:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Plenty, until the likes of certain individuals turned up and turned them down. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#B05427">Majorly</span>]]''' <sup>''[[User talk:Majorly|<span style="color:black">talk</span>]]''</sup> 22:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:::You can't deny the reality Majorly - whether it's because of "editors like Balloonman" or even myself. That's just the way RfA is. [[User:Wisdom89|'''<font color="#660000">Wisdom89</font>''']] <sub>([[User_talk:Wisdom89|<small><sub><font color="#17001E">T</font></sub></small>]] / [[Special:Contributions/Wisdom89|<small><sup><font color="#17001E">C</font></sup></small>]])</sub> 22:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::::No, that isn't "just the way RfA is". It's the voters that make it the way it is. RfA can change, if the voters change. It's the voters' fault RfA is getting tougher. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#B05427">Majorly</span>]]''' <sup>''[[User talk:Majorly|<span style="color:black">talk</span>]]''</sup> 22:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::Years ago, editors passed with fewer than 1000 edits. As time has gone on, the "typical standard" has steadily increased. Have any recent candidates passed with sub-1000 edits? No. Have there been any recent candidates with sub-1000 who would have made good admins? I'm sure there have. [[User:Useight|Useight]] ([[User talk:Useight|talk]]) 22:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::If I read above proposals correctly, then Balloonman is proposing it exactly '''because''' everyone else is so tough on candidates (and as Wisdom89 points out, that exactly is what happens) and he wants to prevent them to get bitten. You cannot change the way people think and vote by policy, but you can propose to minimize the risks for newbies which stems from the way those people will react with 100% certainty. '''[[User:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #AC0000">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #1F3F53">Why</span>]]''' 22:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::Well then he's taking the wrong way about it. We shouldn't confuse an experienced (come on, after 1K edits you have some idea of what the heck's going on) editor by telling him he's still a clueless noob. We should vote differently. Majorly is 110% correct. —'''[[user talk:giggy|Giggy]]''' 01:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I disagree with Majorly. After 1000 edits, I still only knew about half of the stuff I knew at my passing RfA. Also, even though users passed RfA a while ago with less than 1000 edits, as Wikipedia improves, the standards get higher. It's the natural way of things. [[User:Soxred93|<span style="color:#008000;font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:bold;letter-spacing: 2px;">Soxπed93</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Soxred93|(blag)]]</sup> 01:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Just to play devil's advocate, if you had been given the bit at 1000 edits, would you have misused it? Or would you have carefully learned what you needed to know to use it well? Started slow, picked one area to learn at a time, and worked your way into it? [[User:Darkspots|Darkspots]] ([[User talk:Darkspots|talk]]) 01:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Exactly, Darkspots! If someone is clearly stupid, don't support them, but if they show they have a brain ''and'' 1000 edits, do we think they're going to suddenly become a moron if we sysop them? —'''[[user talk:giggy|Giggy]]''' 01:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::Reply to Darkspots: Even after 1000 edits, I still made some big mistakes, is what I'm saying. Mistakes that get fixed with experience. [[User:Soxred93|<span style="color:#008000;font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:bold;letter-spacing: 2px;">Soxπed93</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Soxred93|(blag)]]</sup> 01:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::: I think that we cannot set any guideline or requirement for [[WP:NOTNOW]], it comes down to the nominated individual and everyone is different. making a minimum would put inplace an expectation that every RFA that didnt meet it should be closed on the spot, this could not be worse for wikipedia and i will never support such a motion. [[User:Prom3th3an|<b><span style="color:#FF0000;background:white">&nbsp; «<span style="color:#736F6E">l<span style="color:#736F6E">|<span style="color:#151B54"> Ψrom3th3ăn ™</span>|</span>l</span>»&nbsp;</span></b>]] [[User_talk:Prom3th3an| (talk)]] 10:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

People are going to make mistakes before and after adminship. A higher edit count won't make a difference. There are editors with over 50000 edits who would make (and make) terrible admins. It's a very poor indicator of experience after about 1000 edits. Fewer than about 1000 edits, perhaps you have a point, but I disagree with setting a hard rule, as there are always some exceptions. Someone with 1000 edits isn't really much different than someone with 3000, and we have recently promoted people with fewer than 3000 edits. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#B05427">Majorly</span>]]''' <sup>''[[User talk:Majorly|<span style="color:black">talk</span>]]''</sup> 14:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:I agree with Majorly. Edit count is an easy way to get a very vague impression of a user's experience, but we shouldn't endorse the idea that it's really a valuable tool for gauging a user's worth by enshrining it in a rule. As I always say to proposals to make more rules at RfA, we should be changing the culture rather than creating more rules; if people are biting newbies, we need to bring this up with those people, not letting them get away with it. We don't need to impose arbitrary limits, we need to be able to trust people's ability to judge each case; if we can't we have bigger problems anyway. I imagine a newbie might be alienated by rules based on a bunch of arbitrary numbers, too. [[user:delldot|<font color="#990066">delldot</font>]] <small>[[user talk:delldot|<font color="DarkRed">talk</font>]]</small> 05:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

== Desire or use for the tools ==

*[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Choess]]
I am currently being accosted for opposing due to the candidate's seeming lack of interest in the tools, and for their not explaining what they intend to use them for. (Saying that they will get around to it eventually, suggests to me that there is no ''current'' "need".)

Anyway, I've laid out my reasoning there. After reading it, I'd appreciate your (plural) thoughts on this. After all, perhaps [[WP:Consensus#Consensus can change|consensus has changed]] in regards to this. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 21:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

:Keeping it here to avoid clogging the RFA – I think "doesn't need the tools" (as opposed to "doesn't ''understand'' the tools") is a very weak argument. I was a "classic" [[WP:Requests for adminship/Iridescent|doesn't need the tools candidate]], but even though I've never focussed on adminny things since then, along the way I've performed 300+ blocks and 1900+ deletes, none of which have seriously been argued against (aside from [[User:Abd|one controversial block]], on which the jury's still out). As long as the candidate can be trusted not to misuse the tools, I don't see why any user shouldn't be given them.<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;[[User:Iridescent|<font color="#E45E05">iride</font>]][[User_talk:Iridescent|<font color="#C1118C">scent</font>]]<small>&nbsp;21:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)</small></font>
::Not at all. I think you rather clearly indicated what you would (and wouldn't) use the tools for. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 22:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:I think this rationale has gone the way of the dodo... the questions that are currently envouge are 1) Do we trust the user? 2) Does the user know policy? 3) Does the user build consensus? The basic idea being, if you give the tools to a trustworthy candidate, who understands policy, and won't abuse the tools, then it doesn't really matter if they need the tools or not. If the user makes 1 protection or blocks one vandal, then their having the tools is a net benefit to the project.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 22:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
::Yep. (agree with balloonman). It isn't about need. It's about desire. I don't want new admins that are solely looking to block new users, or solely looking to delete new pages. I'm looking for Wikipedians. Those that are here for the betterment of Wikipedia. If they use the tools once per year, to move a page over a redirect, then there is no harm done in allowing them access to the tools that allow them to move a page over a redirect. It really is that simple. If you think otherwise, you are dilluting yourself. [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]] {{IPA|&#448;}} [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]] 22:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:::I pretty much agree with Baloonman's 3 points of criteria. However, I think that that's putting the cart before the horse. And further, what you both seem to be suggesting is that previous experience is unnecessary. And would be surprised if that actually has consensus. Part of trusting a user with the tools is looking at past experience (contributions), and further, learning the user's "intent".
:::And I don't consider "desire" to be met by merely accepting a nom. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 22:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
::::"Desire"? Surely you mean "power hunger". — [[User talk:CharlotteWebb|CharlotteWebb]] 22:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::While that was a cute response, it has nothing to do with this discussion. The "power hunger" opposes of a certain editor have to do with self-noms, which I don't believe has even been brought up. (That is, until now...) - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 23:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
::::jc, from what I can see, neither of them were suggesting that past experience is not a factor, or rather unimportant. They're saying that if the tools are janitorial in nature, and a candidate gets granted the bit and they do something, anything that helps the project, then they are beneficial. The old net positive phrase. You can't possibly have too many administrators. [[User:Wisdom89|'''<font color="#660000">Wisdom89</font>''']] <sub>([[User_talk:Wisdom89|<small><sub><font color="#17001E">T</font></sub></small>]] / [[Special:Contributions/Wisdom89|<small><sup><font color="#17001E">C</font></sup></small>]])</sub> 22:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::A quite good one is Moni's current RFA. It's clear that she has little experience in admin areas – however, from her past performance I trust her to learn how to use anything properly should she ever need to use it.<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;[[User:Iridescent|<font color="#E45E05">iride</font>]][[User_talk:Iridescent|<font color="#C1118C">scent</font>]]<small>&nbsp;22:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)</small></font>

:::::There is a difference between past experience in general, and past experience in things which admins tend to do/deal with.
:::::And while it's perfectly fine for someone to "vote" to support (due to trust), even though someone doesn't have such experience, that doesn't mean that it's wrong to oppose for the same reason. "Trust" is a personal thing, and we (at least currently) intentionally do not have "minimum criteria" for "trust" here.
:::::If it helps, I think Baloonman and Keeper most understood my request at the top (or at least their comments indicate such), regardless of whether we agree : ) - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 23:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Jc37, I think that Choess' answer to Q1 was extremely honest, showed some sensible reticence, but, erm, does express a need for the tools. It's just a more limited need than most candidates express, but it's a need nonetheless. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller|talk]]) 09:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
:That doesn't answer my question above, but it's a fair opinion. (My perspective was/is that intentions for "someday" means that the nom could/should be postponed for "someday" as well...)
:Anyway, atm, I'm waiting to see if the candidate will actually finish answering the questions, or just wait out what will likely be a successful nom.
:In any case, does anyone have further thoughts about my initial question above? (Even if it turns out to be: "you're all wet" : ) - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 11:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

::I've always considered "not enough need for the tools" to be a very poor reason to oppose. When we test people for a driver's license, we don't make them promise to drive a certain number of miles per year. We test whether they're competent to operate the vehicle. If an editor wants to ''occasionally'' delete or protect a page, that's just fine, as long as they're competent. We're volunteers. Demanding some more-than-this-much level of participation is not reasonable. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 14:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
:::That's all fine, but this has nothing to do with whether a candidate is intending "occasional" usage. It has to do with the question of whether they intend to use the tools at all in the near future. And where their current "expertise" may lie. Else why have a nom at this specific moment? What is the current "need"? - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 14:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Well, this is a volunteer project, some editors have more time to invest than others. Even if they are only able to use the tools occasionally, if they're using them correctly, it's still a net positive. [[User:Useight|Useight]] ([[User talk:Useight|talk]]) 15:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
::I think that yes, the mood has changed. I used to see that argument used a lot. This, to my mind, is A Good Thing. There's a greater focus on trustworthiness now. Interestingly, the adminiship is No Big Deal argument seems to have declined in popularity too. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller|talk]]) 14:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, let's see if we can sort this out. Hypothetical scenario (ie not Choess): candidate comes to RfA and says they have no need for the tools and can't see that they'll need them in the short term, but they'd be nice to have at some point, in case of need. (NB I'm pretty sure I remember this actually happening, but let's stick to hypothetical)
Jc37, presumably you'd oppose. Am I right in thinking that you're asking whether others would support and if so, how could they? --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller|talk]]) 15:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
:Well, I was asking what others thought the current consensus was, but at this point, I'd be happy with personal opinions, so yes, I'll ask that.
:As for me, I'd probably look "deeper", but yes, if based only on that, I'd probably oppose. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 15:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
::I think that in times gone by, you wouldn't have been alone, but speaking personally, if I felt the candidate was trustworthy, I would have no good reason to oppose. So long as they weren't narky in the way they said they have no need for the tools, but want them anway, nerrr. Then again, if they were the kind of person to do that, there'd be other problems in their contrib history too. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller|talk]]) 15:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
:::I think you are right Dweller. The "[[WP:NBD|no big deal]]"-argument is not used much anymore but it should be. If we honestly believe adminship to be no big deal, then you cannot oppose because they might not use the tools much. It's like proposing a "Request for page move rights"-procedural, because most editors will not use the "move"-button often and thus don't need it anyway. '''[[User:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #AC0000">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #1F3F53">Why</span>]]''' 08:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's something to consider. Look at the log of my actions: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Deskana]. Do I need the tools? Do I use them much? Say I was to run for adminship for the first time now, would you oppose me on that basis? --[[User:Deskana|Deskana]] <small>[[User talk:Deskana|(talk)]]</small> 15:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
:In looking over [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Deskana|your RfA]], you seem to have answered question #1 rather directly, and even noted what things you were active in at the time. You indicated a "want", and implied a "need". And these could be checked out by looking through your contributions of the time.
:So to respond, this isn't about how actively you would use the tools. It isn't about how active or inactive a Wikipedian you are.
:It's about showing a "need" (a reason to request) at the time of request.
:And it takes more than just listing shortcuts to processes. Listing processes that the candidate has no previous experience in would be interesting, and nice to see that they have a future interest, but (in terms of this question at least) what I'm interested in is their ''current'' contributions at the time of request.
:Does this better clarify? - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 15:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

== Proposal - Remove questions regarding Recall ==

To start, some reading:
*[[Wikipedia_talk:Administrators_open_to_recall#The_admin_recall_process_is_dead_.28WP:AN.29]]
*[[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 17#Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall]]

Essentially, this question can be used to push a voluntary process that is neither an accepted policy nor guideline. I am therefore opposed to it's submission as a question at RfA as it can make it a requirement for a candidate to join the process. Further to this, I submit that any further questions regarding the recall process should be struck from RfAs. The reasons for this opposition are as follows:
*There is no assurance that the candidate will submit to a recall process should they be recalled
*The candidate should not be elected on the strength of a recall promise alone. If a candidate would only be suitable if they became open to recall, please see the point above
*There should be a feeling that this is an optional and voluntary process, and the candidate should not feel pressured or coerced into joining AoR as part of their RfA. If you feel that recall should not be optional, please see my first point.
*The question of recall does not assist in assessing a candidate's suitability to become an administrator. If you feel that this question can assist you in assessing a candidate, please seem the points above.

Obviously I'd be keen to get some thoughts and input on this, but I do find it a touch unreasonable that this question keeps on cropping up at RfA. Although there are more general thoughts around RfA questioning that we're working on as part of the [[WP:RREV|RfA Review]], I feel this one needs to be nipped in the bud. As always, your thoughts are much appreciated. Many thanks, '''''<font color="green">[[User:Gazimoff|Gazi]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Gazimoff|moff]]</font>''''' 22:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
:It's silly for recall to be a make-or-break issue at RfA, especially in light of how casually it can be disregarded when push comes to shove. But prohibiting mention of it is way too prescriptive and reactive. I'd actually like to see how candidates handle this question - are they so eager to please that they'll reluctantly agree? Do they have the fortitude to say, "No, I won't be open to recall, and here's why"? Do they think recall is an extra layer of accountability that they'd like to voluntarily add? I mean, if these folks are ready to be admins, we don't need to protect them from this particular question. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 22:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

::It's a valid point, and normally I'd agree with you completely on it. But from reading the two topics I've linked to, including Lar (who created AoR) stating that it shouldn't be used as a question at RfA does make me increasingly concerned. Not because of the legitimacy or otherwise of the concept, but because of it being treated as a make or break issue at RfA. I don't think that any recent candidate has stated that they would refuse being open to recall, but I am concerned that they do so either because it is perceived as a make or break question, or because they feel obliged to participate in a voluntary process in much the same way as they feel obliged to answer optional questions. That coupled with the srongly divided opinions in the tweo threads I've linked to and the numerous responses to RfA review make me feel that it's a topic that we just shouldn't be pushing. Despite my own opinions though, there is also sound logic as to why we shouldn't be using it as the basis for a question, and it's this that I've tried to base my argument on. Hope this helps, '''''<font color="green">[[User:Gazimoff|Gazi]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Gazimoff|moff]]</font>''''' 23:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

:Given that I've already argued for the AOR category to be deleted, it should be no surprise that I support this proposal. As far as I can tell, the recall question (like the infamous 'cool-down blocks' one) is only ever asked to trip up potential administrators; as far as I can tell, it has never been a useful guide to whether or not someone will make a good admin. While I hate the idea of stopping a certain question from being asked altogether, in this case I feel it is sadly appropriate, as there have been cases of RFAs failing purely because the candidate refused to add themselves to this category (and RFAs which only passed because they did add themselves, which is almost as bad). For all the reasons given by Gazimoff above, this should ''never'' be a reason to support or oppose a candidate, at least as long as the recall 'process' remains in its current state; as such, I feel this question is one that simply should not be asked of potential administrators. [[User:Terraxos|Terraxos]] ([[User talk:Terraxos|talk]]) 22:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
We're missing the point. Asking if an editor would hand back their admin bit ''sans-drama'' is not the same as asking them to be in a particular category that's currently disputed. To ask someone under what circumstances they'd give up +sysop is perfectly legitimate and should be actively encouraged. The words of these questions may be wrong but the thrust of the enquiry is not. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:Pedro|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;Chat&nbsp;</font>]] </span></small> 23:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

*While I agree with the spirit of this proposal, I think that it would be more appropriate to implement this by suggesting that questions concerning eliciting participation in ''any'' optional process, be removed. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 00:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
*I hate the question... I think it is a poison pill. If you don't answer in the affirmative, you garner an oppose and harsh criticism... even though the concept is flawed and should be voluntary. I do, however, like Pedro's alternative. Especially if it is asked in the generic, "Under what circumstances should an admin voluntarily give up the bit?"---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 01:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC) OOPS, forgot to include, but I wouldn't forbid the question, just encourage others not to ask it.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 14:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
**The problem is not with the questions regarding Recall, but rather over our community′s attitudes towards the system. We should be working on adjusting how our contributors view the category (read: it′s not something over which making drama would be helpful), rather than eliminating the category, and all the benefits it has, because of the particulars of how it introduces itself into an RfA. [[User:AGK|<font style="color:#2A8B31;font-family:sans-serif;">'''Anthøny'''</font>]] 01:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
***Benefits it has??? I'm sorry, I see it as a toothless tiger. Until and unless it has some sort of enforceability, it is a joke.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 02:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
***It's just not the "particulars of how it introduces itself into an RfA," it's also how and in what form it realistically turns out to be (a pathetic mess). Recall sounds nice, but I have yet to see a single recall process that was not accompanied by unnecessary drama. Telling people to change their views does not address the issue; changing what causes people to have a dim view of the current recall process does. —'''<font face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Kurykh|<font color="#0000C0">kur</font>]][[User talk:Kurykh|<font color="#0000C0">ykh</font>]]</font>''' 02:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
****I have to agree here in thinking that the Pedro Compromise is a great alternative, as it allows the candidate to be flexible in how they answer and doesn't promote the use of any particular method. '''''<font color="green">[[User:Gazimoff|Gazi]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Gazimoff|moff]]</font>''''' 06:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
*I think removing, or forbidding, ''any'' question asked by someone else is wrong, this one included. We're saying they're mature and intelligent enough to be an admin, but they aren't mature and intelligent enough to handle a tricky (or even trick) question themselves? The questioner obviously thinks it's a fair question. If the candidate thinks it's a fair question, we shouldn't intervene. If the candidate doesn't think it's a fair question, they should have the guts to say so, or at least leave it blank. How a candidate handles such questions is useful information; if a candidate is scared to answer a question because they'll garner oppose votes either way, then I wouldn't want them to be an admin. We don't need admins who know how to answer a question the "right" way, we need admins who are grown up enough to tell the truth, and demonstrate intelligence and backbone. For example, anyone scared to answer Kurt's question, because they'll get an oppose from Kurt if they answer one way, or 100 opposes if they answer another way, either has too little backbone to be an admin, or is really bad at math. Now, if you really mean "we as a community shouldn't judge a candidate by whether they will add themselves to [[CAT:AOR]] or not, but by the intelligence and judgement demonstrated by their explanation of their position on the subject", then I agree. And nothing is stopping anyone from saying "I recommend the candidate not answer this question", or a candidate saying "I think this question is unfair, or meaningless, or nobody's business". If you're scared of one or two opposes for not answering a question you think is silly, don't be an admin. ''Fear of acting the way you would normally act, or saying what you would normally say, because you think it will cause too many oppose votes is an indication you shouldn't be an admin.'' --[[User:Barneca|barneca]] ([[User talk:Barneca|talk]]) 02:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::Not to be dense, but why is there this obsession with Kurt? I don't recall him holding sway over great numbers of RfA participants. If his answers are wonky, so...that's him. [[User:Ecoleetage|Ecoleetage]] ([[User talk:Ecoleetage|talk]]) 03:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:::You're asking me, right? I'm not obsessed with Kurt. I'm using his CDB question as another example of a question some people have said they want to remove based on its "unfairness", and that I'm not in favor of removing it. Obsession? --[[User:Barneca|barneca]] ([[User talk:Barneca|talk]]) 03:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::Nothing personal, Barneca; I wasn't talking about you. It was a general observation. I've just seen a surplus of Kurt-related talk and I have to wonder...why? [[User:Ecoleetage|Ecoleetage]] ([[User talk:Ecoleetage|talk]]) 03:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::::It is also pretty normal to be fairly anxious at RfA, so I can understand. I guess it boils down to honesty being the best policy in answering questions really (WRT AOR etc.), and that if a candidate states they will not place themselves in the category, they should be able to expalin what they would do instead (eg that AN/I or RfC may be sufficient or whatever).

::::PS: As far as drama re Kurt - no different really to drama surrounding other people who take certain views in the face of consensus..Cheers, [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 04:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::It's not so much the Kurt Oppose that concerns me, as it is just a single individual. What does concern me is otherwise suitable candidates being unsuccessful at RfA purely because they do not wish themselves to be open to recall, which is by definition optional and voluntary. If you would support or oppose a candidate purely based on the pledge to join a particular process, then there is a problem. '''''<font color="green">[[User:Gazimoff|Gazi]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Gazimoff|moff]]</font>''''' 06:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:::But the point is that everyone is free to have their own reasons for supporting or opposing. If people oppose solely based on that, it's not a problem of the recall process but of those users. No changes in the process will fix that nor will removing such questions. They will just find another reason to oppose if they really want to. I think the questions should be allowed, no doubt about it. But the closing 'crat just has to take into consideration, when consensus is not clear, that opposes like "Oppose. User does not want to take part in [[WP:AOR]]" have to be judged accordingly (taking into account that noone can be forced to participate in WP:AOR). '''[[User:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #AC0000">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #1F3F53">Why</span>]]''' 08:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

[[User:Giggy/On Kurt and RfA|Ramblings on Kurt]].<br />I ignore most optional questions, anyway, unless they are clearly original (which is pretty much never; they're almost always copypastah by people trying to level up). So I really don't care either way. If people are opposing for a reason that others deem silly, we can only hope the 'crats follow this discussion. —'''[[user talk:giggy|Giggy]]''' 10:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:AMEN!!! I hate option questions that are cookie cutter. If you are going to ask a question, make it candidate specific based upon his/her experiences and your specific concerns about said candidate. Not some hunting/fishing trip that says nothing. Optional questions, when asked that way, are for the lazy. People who don't spend enough time to research the question themselves in the candidates history.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 14:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Without reading any other comment under this header (since the header says it all), I'll offer my opinion. We should still be able to ask a candidate if they would be willing to go through at least some form of community recall; whether a community designed criteria based platform, or the candidates personal or preferred recall method. I think its a fairly reasonable question to ask, given that we cannot know how the candidate will use these tools 3,4,5 or 6 months down the road. '''[[User:Synergy|<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Syn</font>]]'''[[User_talk:Synergy|<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">ergy</font>]] 10:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:Well, it might seem so, but as long as we do not establish a binding policy on it, everyone has the right to decide if they want to take that "risk". It's harsh to ask it and then oppose if the candidate declines it. But of course it's allowed to ask it, because every candidate has the right to refuse answers on those optional questions anyway. '''[[User:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #AC0000">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #1F3F53">Why</span>]]''' 10:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::There will never be be a policy on optional questions, nor will there be a guideline in the near future. The community have yet to band together on this and I've been told that many times over two years. They have the right to refuse it sure. But they will be opposed if they do not answer them, its guaranteed. '''[[User:Synergy|<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Syn</font>]]'''[[User_talk:Synergy|<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">ergy</font>]] 11:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:::I meant a policy on recall, i.e. something all admins have to follow. As long as it's optional to be open for recall, refusal to do so, should not lead to opposes and if it does, those opposes have to be judged accordingly by the closing 'crat. You can ask candidates all you want to know about them (within reason) but if you oppose them because they are making a choice they are entitled to then that's not a good reason to oppose them. So, I think you are right, those questions have to be allowed to be asked. But so has the closing crat have the right to disregard opposes solely based on someone's unwillingness to submit to WP:AOR. '''[[User:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #AC0000">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #1F3F53">Why</span>]]''' 11:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Ah I see. I'm not so sure a policy is needed for recall. I'd have to see the pros and cons to properly assess its need first. Most editors do not agree with it, so the idea would almost instantly be opposed once it hits the centralized discussion template. '''[[User:Synergy|<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Syn</font>]]'''[[User_talk:Synergy|<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">ergy</font>]] 11:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think any policy on removing serious questions in an RfA is wrongheaded and doomed to fail. The ridiculous OT questions can be removed, generally at the final discretion of a 'crat, and umpteen questions from a single person have sometimes been pared down. But actually adopting a proposal for a policy change that would prohibit a ''specific'' question? Sorry, I don't see it. Its one question in an RfA that the candidate is free to answer any way they want or not at all, and voters are free to consider that answer in any way they want or not at all. I don't see the major problem, although I personally won't be asking that question anymore (I have, a number of times, in the past). I'll still ask about CAT:BOR, though. [[User:Avruch|<strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch</strong>]][[User talk:Avruch|<sup><strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T </strong></sup>]] 16:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:I agree with Avruch. I don't think we need to eliminate any serious questions from the pool of questions that an editor can possibly ask. True, candidate-specific questions are often better tools to use to gauge the candidate, but I don't think that's cause to eliminate some of the cookie-cutter ones. [[User:Useight|Useight]] ([[User talk:Useight|talk]]) 16:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::I think there's far too much emphasis on the questions in general. Endorsements should be made on the basis of the nominee's history as a Wikipedian, not on the basis of formulaic answers and questions, and certainly not on the basis of "campaign promises." [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 05:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

== Highly regarded article editors who wrote significantly less after becoming admins? ==

I have seen this issue crop up at times in RfA and RfB - can anyone actually think of any highly regarded article editors who wrote significantly less after becoming admins? Cheers, [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 13:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:It is fairly common. I was more of an article writer before becoming an admin. But I think there is a cause and effect difference. When I was writing articles more, I was writing articles on issues that were of concern to me and that I was interested in. When I ran out of the articles that I wanted to write on, that is when I ran for adminship. Thus, it wasn't a matter of "Balloonman was an article writer, became an admin, and stopped writing articles" but rather, "Balloonman was an article writer, ran out of articles he wanted to write, and in an effort to continue to be of benefit to the project became an admin." I suspect others make the move for the same reason or for the secondary reason that I made the move. I'm simply not a good enough writer to get articles to FA/GA and enjoy the trip. (I've done it, but it wasn't enjoyable.) Others, however, don't realize that these are why a lot of article writers move into adminship.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 14:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::I'd have to admit that I certainly wrote more articles before adminship. While I nowadays like to keep at least one article circulating at [[T:TDYK]] at any one time, it seems that ever since my promotion in Sept. 2007, things have expanded a lot more for me, I've been active in more areas, and article writing hasn't happened as much for me. This is something I'd probably like to rectify. &mdash;<strong>[[User:Anonymous Dissident|<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold;color:DarkRed">Anonymous Dissident</span>]]</strong>[[User_talk:Anonymous Dissident|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:Gray">Talk</span></sup>]] 14:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:::I suppose that means I'm anomaly, then? I've been writing more FAs, although I admit my use of admin tools in pretty much blocking vandals and instituting page protections on my watchlisted pages... <font color="#cc6600">[[User:David Fuchs|Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs]]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">[[User talk:David Fuchs|talk]]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 15:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::::I wouldn't say that. I've seen some good admins continue, or begin working more on articles after becoming an admin. I also think that there are probably plenty of admins who stopped writing articles for various reasons, some good, some bad. I've also heard that burnout is more likely, and is possibly a cause of this. But who knows, I expect its different for each admin, and each situation. '''[[User:Synergy|<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Syn</font>]]'''[[User_talk:Synergy|<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">ergy</font>]] 15:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::Well said Synergy. Lots of good article writers are good admins, but you never can find them, because they go right back to editing good articles. They didn't want the admin trophy, they merely wanted to move a page over a redirect instead of having to ask some admin to do it for them. If anything, I can name several writer/admins that are even ''more'' productive because they don't have to wait for one of use policy-wonks to reply to them or use RM or EPP requests. Now, the bigger concern, is what do we do with all these silly admins that never wrote articles in the first place? (<small>looks all shifty-eyed, quickly leaves room...</small> [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]] {{IPA|&#448;}} [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]] 15:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::Shackle them to the helpdesk? :) '''''<font color="green">[[User:Gazimoff|Gazi]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Gazimoff|moff]]</font>''''' 15:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::Ask them to [[WP:SPOT|join a project]] or create one I suppose. I've found a collaborative effort rather enjoyable and an easy way to ask questions and learn. '''[[User:Synergy|<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Syn</font>]]'''[[User_talk:Synergy|<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">ergy</font>]] 15:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::: I plead guilty to writing a lot less after adminship. One reason I forced myself to "retire" is to make myself go back to writing somewhat. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 18:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::::May I ask which you enjoy more? Not a trap question, just a curious one. [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]] {{IPA|&#448;}} [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]] 19:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::::: Neither, because the fun comes out of collaboration which matters more to me. It is just as good working with others on the common goal to destroy backlogs as it is to get something up to FA. Something I do seem to find it harder to achieve these days. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 19:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::Perfect answer, and the one I suspected anyway. :-) [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]] {{IPA|&#448;}} [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]] 22:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
''(outdent)'' (aah, much better after early morning coffee)'' - collaboration is definitely fun and very interesting to watch and/or participate in..GA and FA are also good for this in the main.Cheers, [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 22:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:I'm going to have to say that after I became an admin, my article work significantly decreased. I think this is because as a non admin, there weren't as to do that I liked to do as there are as an admin. There were plenty of things I could do, but I just don't like article writing. Now that I'm an admin, there's plenty to do that I enjoy. FYI, I like to do things that are... "concrete" thoughts, like [[WP:OP]], instead of abstract thoughts that article writing entails. [[User:Soxred93|<span style="color:#008000;font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:bold;letter-spacing: 2px;">Soxπed93</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Soxred93|(blag)]]</sup> 01:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
:(outdent) Interesting... I'm probably an exception as well, I've actually written more articles as an admin (anyways more quality articles). '''<font face="Rockwell">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="43AA54">Maxim</font>]] ([[User talk:Maxim|<font color="aa0000">☎</font>]])</font>''' 03:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Many cases of this. We all have only so much time to devote to wiki, we just shift where on wiki we spend it when we take new tasks. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — [[User:Rlevse|<span style="color:#060;">'''''R''levse'''</span>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 03:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
:I've written more quality articles than before I was an admin, like Maxim. I think that there is a kind of mentality that, "oh my god, I'm an admin, I have to save the Wiki" where in fact there are plenty of other admins willing to add to their ever growing log count. Only you yourself can dictate where you spend time on Wikipedia. As for me, I do whatever I feel like. If I feel like expanding an article, I will do so. If I feel like watching AIV or clearing a CSD backlog, I'll do it. Perhaps it's least efficient, but I find it more relaxing. After all, if I'm spending my time volunteering at Wikipedia, I might as well enjoy it. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">5</font>]]''''' 03:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
::I'm an advocate of being a nomadic contributor. I suspect I would have burned out or just lost interest long ago if I didn't keep shifting what I do here. Finding new areas to help out and explore is what keeps me engaged. The only down side is that you inevitably stumble across Wikipedia's warts.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 03:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've written more articles as an admin than a non-admin. Before adminship, I was more of a vandal fighter (I passed in the days when that was a good thing). '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#B05427">Majorly</span>]]''' <sup>''[[User talk:Majorly|<span style="color:black">talk</span>]]''</sup> 14:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
:Ah, the good old days, when legendary vandal-fighters still roamed the Wiki. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">5</font>]]''''' 19:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Check out [[m:Namespace shift]] for an essay about this very issue (though in a much broader sense). I, for one, know that my editing habits shifted a bit after my RfA, and again after my RfB. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] // [[User:EVula/admin|<span style="color: #366;">&#9775;</span>]] //</span> 19:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I cannot comment outside of narcissism and egoism about my being highly regarded, but I did find that for a while I did significantly less article work and more janitorial work after becoming an admin. More recently I have tried to take a couple of articles under my wing to make sure that I try and continue to add good content to the encyclopedia. -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] ([[User talk:Avraham|talk]]) 04:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

: I find that some of the best article writers also happen to be article editors, from my experience at [[WP:FAC]] and [[WP:FLC]]. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Gary King|<font color="#02e">Gary</font>&nbsp;<font color="#02b"><b>King</b></font>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Gary King|<font color="#02e">talk</font>]])</font> 05:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say that my amount of article writing dropped significantly after I began an admin. Conversely, when I started writing again, my amount of admin work took a big drop as well. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Sephiroth BCR|<font color="navy">'''sephiroth bcr'''</font>]] <sup>'''([[User talk:Sephiroth BCR|<font color="blue">converse</font>]])'''</sup></font> 05:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

: From what I can see a lot of admins seem to approach admin duties as a chore; the way I see it, content editors who successfully become admins should continue doing their typical content editing routines and perform admin duties when they need it; for instance, I only edit articles I like to read or learn more about and a lot of them are coincidentally controversial articles, so I often have to submit reports to [[WP:RPP]], etc. which is where admin tools would come in handy. My content editing wouldn't take a huge hit from that kind of stuff. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Gary King|<font color="#02e">Gary</font>&nbsp;<font color="#02b"><b>King</b></font>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Gary King|<font color="#02e">talk</font>]])</font> 06:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

:I guess I am one such candidate. After gaining adminship, my FA count jumped but after RFB, it crashed. Of course off wiki life is also to blame. I love article editing over everything else, and I try to make sure that my FA and collaboration drives supersede everything else. [[user:Nichalp|<font color="#0082B8">=Nichalp</font>]] [[User Talk:Nichalp|<font color="#0082B8">«Talk»=</font>]] 18:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Overall I don't think it's really a big issue. I stopped doing CSD work after gaining adminship, ironically, but I think the main reason I did all the anti-vandal and new page patrol back then was because I was a relative newbie editor who didn't have serious article writing chops. Sometimes I get burned out and work on WP:space stuff instead. All depends. <font color="#cc6600">[[User:David Fuchs|Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs]]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">[[User talk:David Fuchs|talk]]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 19:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

== 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. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 05:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:The neutral votes aren't part of the calculation. [[User:Wisdom89|'''<font color="#660000">Wisdom89</font>''']] <sub>([[User_talk:Wisdom89|<small><sub><font color="#17001E">T</font></sub></small>]] / [[Special:Contributions/Wisdom89|<small><sup><font color="#17001E">C</font></sup></small>]])</sub> 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 :) [[User:SQL|<span style="font-size:7pt;color: #fff;background:#900;border:2px solid #999">SQL</span>]][[User talk:SQL|<sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!</sup>]] 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 : ) - [[User:Jc37|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. [[User:Wisdom89|'''<font color="#660000">Wisdom89</font>''']] <sub>([[User_talk:Wisdom89|<small><sub><font color="#17001E">T</font></sub></small>]] / [[Special:Contributions/Wisdom89|<small><sup><font color="#17001E">C</font></sup></small>]])</sub> 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. [[User:SQL|<span style="font-size:7pt;color: #fff;background:#900;border:2px solid #999">SQL</span>]][[User talk:SQL|<sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!</sup>]] 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. ~ <font color="#228b22">[[User:Mazca|'''m'''a'''z'''c'''a''']]</font> <sup>[[User_talk:Mazca|'''t''']] | [[Special:Contributions/Mazca|'''c''']]</sup> 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. '''[[User:JimMillerJr|<span style="color:green">Jim Miller</span>]]''' <sup> [[Special:Contributions/JimMillerJr|See me]] | [[User talk:JimMillerJr|Touch me]]</sup> 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. [[User:Wisdom89|'''<font color="#660000">Wisdom89</font>''']] <sub>([[User_talk:Wisdom89|<small><sub><font color="#17001E">T</font></sub></small>]] / [[Special:Contributions/Wisdom89|<small><sup><font color="#17001E">C</font></sup></small>]])</sub> 16:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::::I do agree, as well, for a lot of neutrals, the 'discussion' section would suffice. [[User:SQL|<span style="font-size:7pt;color: #fff;background:#900;border:2px solid #999">SQL</span>]][[User talk:SQL|<sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!</sup>]] 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. - '''[[User:Icewedge|Icewedge]] ([[User talk: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."---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 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. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — [[User:Rlevse|<span style="color:#060;">'''''R''levse'''</span>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 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... '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#B05427">Majorly</span>]]''' <sup>''[[User talk:Majorly|<span style="color:black">talk</span>]]''</sup> 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?---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 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. [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Claims]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Evidence]] </small> 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! ;-) '''[[User:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #AC0000">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #1F3F53">Why</span>]]''' 11:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
:[[WP:HACKS]]. <font color="404040">[[User talk:Skomorokh|<font face="Garamond" color="black">Skomorokh</font>]]</font> 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. '''[[User:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #AC0000">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #1F3F53">Why</span>]]''' 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=&year=&month=-1 Deletion Log]. [[User:Useight|Useight]] ([[User talk: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. [[Image:Face-wink.svg|20 px]] '''<font face="Rockwell">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="43AA54">Maxim</font>]] ([[User talk:Maxim|<font color="aa0000">☎</font>]])</font>''' 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... '''[[User:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #AC0000">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #1F3F53">Why</span>]]''' 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. [[User:Useight|Useight]] ([[User talk: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. — [[User talk:CharlotteWebb|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? - [[User:Mailer diablo|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. [[User:Wisdom89|'''<font color="#660000">Wisdom89</font>''']] <sub>([[User_talk:Wisdom89|<small><sub><font color="#17001E">T</font></sub></small>]] / [[Special:Contributions/Wisdom89|<small><sup><font color="#17001E">C</font></sup></small>]])</sub> 18:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be particularly interested to see the list of administrators living in WikiWonderland. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuorum|talk]]) 19:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
:<nowiki>*</nowiki>raises hand* '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">5</font>]]''''' 19:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it would really help much. I usually edit during evening hours [[Indian Standard Time|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. [[user:Nichalp|<font color="#0082B8">=Nichalp</font>]] [[User Talk:Nichalp|<font color="#0082B8">«Talk»=</font>]] 18:46, 25 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!). [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 19:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::Erm... Pardon? [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk: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... - [[User:Mailer diablo|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? [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk: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 <s>wikifossil</s>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? [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]] [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(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. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 20:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
::: And more questions for candidates asking for suffrage? - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 20:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::::I'm fairly sure that suggestion was just a joke. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 20:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::Years ago the process was, indeed, incredibly simple, take a look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Successful_adminship_candidacies&oldid=1449014#Paul_A this], for example. But as Wikipedia as grown enormously, so has the adminship process. [[User:Useight|Useight]] ([[User talk: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!). [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk: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 :) <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:Pedro|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;Chat&nbsp;</font>]] </span></small> 20:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
:I agree 100% Pedro. [[User:Burner0718|'''<font color="red">Burner</font><font color="gray">0718</font>''']] [[User talk:Burner0718|''<sup><font color="#000000">Jibba Jabba!</font></sup>'']] 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. ~ <font color="#228b22">[[User:Mazca|'''m'''a'''z'''c'''a''']]</font> <sup>[[User_talk:Mazca|'''t''']] | [[Special:Contributions/Mazca|'''c''']]</sup> 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". --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuorum|talk]]) 21:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::[[Hamlet]] <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:Pedro|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;Chat&nbsp;</font>]] </span></small> 21:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::::No thanks, I don't smoke. :-) --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk: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? --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk: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. <small>mind you it might help WP get even more hits... :)</small> <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:Pedro|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;Chat&nbsp;</font>]] </span></small> 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. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuorum|talk]]) 22:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::::You'd be surprised at how many visitors the main page gets (I certainly was); [http://stats.grok.se/en/200805/Main%20Page 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 [http://stats.grok.se/en/200805/Elagabalus the effect on article traffic of an appearance on the main page]).<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;[[User:Iridescent|<font color="#E45E05">iride</font>]][[User_talk:Iridescent|<font color="#C1118C">scent</font>]]<small>&nbsp;23:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)</small></font>

:::::::::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. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk: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).<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;[[User:Iridescent|<font color="#E45E05">iride</font>]][[User_talk:Iridescent|<font color="#C1118C">scent</font>]]</font> 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. [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]] [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(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. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">5</font>]]''''' 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. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 23:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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

::One that I know of. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk: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. --<font color="#cc6600">[[User:David Fuchs|Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs]]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">[[User talk:David Fuchs|talk]]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 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. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 15:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

{{quote|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. :-) [[User:Axl|Axl]] ([[User talk: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... ;-) [[User:the wub|the wub]] [[User_talk:The wub|<font color="green">"?!"</font>]] 08:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

== Proposal: Allow stewards to deadmin based on community consensus ==

See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Proposal:_Allow_stewards_to_deadmin_based_on_community_consensus here]. (crossposting across noticeboards). <font color="amaranth">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NuclearWarfare]]</font>''''' <sup><font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|contact me]]</font></sup>'''''<sub><font color="purple">[[Special:Contributions/NuclearWarfare|My work]]</font></sub> 23:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

== 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. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#B05427">Majorly</span>]]''' <sup>''[[User talk:Majorly|<span style="color:black">talk</span>]]''</sup> 15:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

:At the same time, what context does ''''''Support''' - <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>''' provide? How is that any more valuable or relevant than an oppose that veers off into left field. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 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. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Tanthalas39|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">'''Tan'''</font>]] {{IPA|&#448;}} [[User talk:Tanthalas39|<font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39</font>]] 15:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
:::You're simply wrong: crats should be weighing votes all the time, but whatever. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk: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). [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] // [[User:EVula/admin|<span style="color: #366;">&#9775;</span>]] //</span> 15:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
*Yes, crappy opposition rationales suck. They are also not new.<br />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).<br />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) [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] // [[User:EVula/admin|<span style="color: #366;">&#9775;</span>]] //</span> 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 [[groupthink|bad idea]]. --[[User:Barneca|barneca]] ([[User talk:Barneca|talk]]) 15:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

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

#'''Support''' <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>
#'''Support''' Nice guy <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>
#'''Support''' Great user <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>
#'''Support''' Yep <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>
#'''Support''' Sure <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>
#'''Support''' Why not <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>
#'''Support''' He'll do fine <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>
#'''Support''' Ok <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>

now until we start striking all votes of that form, I really could never support stricking an oppose. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 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. <small>(though I certainly didn't mind it in my RfXs...)</small><br />Please note that this is my opinion ''as an editor'', and '''not''' as a bureaucrat. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] // [[User:EVula/admin|<span style="color: #366;">&#9775;</span>]] //</span> 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. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#B05427">Majorly</span>]]''' <sup>''[[User talk:Majorly|<span style="color:black">talk</span>]]''</sup> 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. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 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. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#B05427">Majorly</span>]]''' <sup>''[[User talk:Majorly|<span style="color:black">talk</span>]]''</sup> 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. [[User:GlassCobra|<font color="002bb8">Glass</font>]]'''[[User talk:GlassCobra|<font color="002bb8">Cobra</font>]]''' 16:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWikihermit&diff=138052941&oldid=138048829 This diff] from Dorftrottel/Everyme is a good explanation regarding no-rationale support versus no-rationale opposes. [[User:Acalamari|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 [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Red_Phoenix|Red Phoenix's RfA]] which garnered a few (justified, in my opinion) opposes due to his naively accepting an RfA nom from [[User:JeanLatore|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. ~ <font color="#228b22">[[User:Mazca|'''m'''a'''z'''c'''a''']]</font> <sup>[[User_talk:Mazca|'''t''']] | [[Special:Contributions/Mazca|'''c''']]</sup> 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. [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn]] ([[User talk:Alansohn|talk]]) 15:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
:I can think of a few anti-noms that I'd like to write. [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]] {{IPA|&#448;}} [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]] 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? [[User:GlassCobra|<font color="002bb8">Glass</font>]]'''[[User talk:GlassCobra|<font color="002bb8">Cobra</font>]]''' 16:48, 25 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. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">[[User:Frank|<span style="color:cyan;background:blue">&nbsp;Frank&nbsp;</span>]]&nbsp;{{!}}&nbsp;[[user_talk:Frank|<span style="color:blue;background:cyan">&nbsp;talk&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 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. [[User:Useight|Useight]] ([[User talk: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.<p>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.<p>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. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 17:00, 25 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. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk: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. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 17:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
::I know some ex-admins who would take exception to that "irreversible action" statement... [[User:Tanthalas39|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">'''Tan'''</font>]] {{IPA|&#448;}} [[User talk:Tanthalas39|<font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39</font>]] 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. [[User:Useight|Useight]] ([[User talk: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. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#B05427">Majorly</span>]]''' <sup>''[[User talk:Majorly|<span style="color:black">talk</span>]]''</sup> 17:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::That there is no doubt in your mind is not the same thing as there being no doubt. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk: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. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#B05427">Majorly</span>]]''' <sup>''[[User talk:Majorly|<span style="color:black">talk</span>]]''</sup> 17:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I thought this was a general discussion, didn't realise that it was just about one candidate. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk: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. '''[[User:JimMillerJr|<span style="color:green">Jim Miller</span>]]''' <sup> [[Special:Contributions/JimMillerJr|See me]] | [[User talk:JimMillerJr|Touch me]]</sup> 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. [[User:Wisdom89|'''<font color="#660000">Wisdom89</font>''']] <sub>([[User_talk:Wisdom89|<small><sub><font color="#17001E">T</font></sub></small>]] / [[Special:Contributions/Wisdom89|<small><sup><font color="#17001E">C</font></sup></small>]])</sub> 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. [[User:Wisdom89|'''<font color="#660000">Wisdom89</font>''']] <sub>([[User_talk:Wisdom89|<small><sub><font color="#17001E">T</font></sub></small>]] / [[Special:Contributions/Wisdom89|<small><sup><font color="#17001E">C</font></sup></small>]])</sub> 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. '''[[User:JimMillerJr|<span style="color:green">Jim Miller</span>]]''' <sup> [[Special:Contributions/JimMillerJr|See me]] | [[User talk:JimMillerJr|Touch me]]</sup> 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.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 18:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC) Oooops, edit, should '''not'''---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 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. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] ([[User talk:Wisdom89|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Wisdom89|contribs]]) </small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:::::::::::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. ---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 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#Age and adminship|Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 136]]. [[User:Kmweber|Kurt Weber]] ('''<span style="background-color: white; color: blue">Go</span> <span style="background-color: blue; color: white">Colts!</span>''') 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.--[[User:KojiDude|<font color="00CD32">Koji</font>]][[User talk:KojiDude|<font color="green">Dude</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/KojiDude|<sup><font color="90EE90">(C)</font></sup>]] 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 [[WP:POINT|POINT]], and not to reach consensus. &ndash;[[User:Juliancolton|Juliancolton]] [[User talk:Juliancolton|<font color="#66666"><sup>'''T'''ropical</sup></font>]] [[Special:contributions/Juliancolton|<font color="#66666"><sup>'''C'''yclone</sup></font>]] 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. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#B05427">Majorly</span>]]''' <sup>''[[User talk:Majorly|<span style="color:black">talk</span>]]''</sup> 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. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk: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. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#B05427">Majorly</span>]]''' <sup>''[[User talk:Majorly|<span style="color:black">talk</span>]]''</sup> 21:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
::::It's quite obvious that it's not obvious at all, since I don't agree with you. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk: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. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#B05427">Majorly</span>]]''' <sup>''[[User talk:Majorly|<span style="color:black">talk</span>]]''</sup> 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. [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]] {{IPA|&#448;}} [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]] 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. :) '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 21:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::::It's quite obvious you're right. :-) --[[User:KojiDude|<font color="00CD32">Koji</font>]][[User talk:KojiDude|<font color="green">Dude</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/KojiDude|<sup><font color="90EE90">(C)</font></sup>]] 21:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Everybody is indeed entitled to their opinion. However, some of {{explain|such|ridiculous, ageist and racist}} opposes are absurd and meant to prove a point, and deserve to be ignored. Not badgered, but ignored. &ndash;[[User:Juliancolton|Juliancolton]] [[User talk:Juliancolton|<font color="#66666"><sup>'''T'''ropical</sup></font>]] [[Special:contributions/Juliancolton|<font color="#66666"><sup>'''C'''yclone</sup></font>]] 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.--[[User:KojiDude|<font color="00CD32">Koji</font>]][[User talk:KojiDude|<font color="green">Dude</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/KojiDude|<sup><font color="90EE90">(C)</font></sup>]] 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. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk: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. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#B05427">Majorly</span>]]''' <sup>''[[User talk:Majorly|<span style="color:black">talk</span>]]''</sup> 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. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk: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? &ndash;[[User:Juliancolton|Juliancolton]] [[User talk:Juliancolton|<font color="#66666"><sup>'''T'''ropical</sup></font>]] [[Special:contributions/Juliancolton|<font color="#66666"><sup>'''C'''yclone</sup></font>]] 21:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
:''This is based years of experience in which children very often act like children.''{{fix|link=Wikipedia:Citation needed|text=citation needed|class=noprint Template-Fact}}? - [[User:Mailer diablo|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. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">5</font>]]''''' 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. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">5</font>]]''''' 21:34, 25 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.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 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 --[[User:T-rex|T]]-[[User talk:T-rex|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. [[User:Tanthalas39|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">'''Tan'''</font>]] {{IPA|&#448;}} [[User talk:Tanthalas39|<font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39</font>]] 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? &ndash;[[User:Juliancolton|Juliancolton]] [[User talk:Juliancolton|<font color="#66666"><sup>'''T'''ropical</sup></font>]] [[Special:contributions/Juliancolton|<font color="#66666"><sup>'''C'''yclone</sup></font>]] 16:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Opposing due to maturity instead of age is less inflammatory. ;) --'''[[User:Cameron|Cameron]][[User Talk: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. --[[User:T-rex|T]]-[[User talk:T-rex|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." [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk: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. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#B05427">Majorly</span>]]''' <sup>''[[User talk:Majorly|<span style="color:black">talk</span>]]''</sup> 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. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk: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 [[WP:AGF|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. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#B05427">Majorly</span>]]''' <sup>''[[User talk:Majorly|<span style="color:black">talk</span>]]''</sup> 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'' ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive452#Request_for_a_block_review]) that you "like drama, so this will be fun", storming off and [[WP:POINT|nominating WP:CIVIL for deletion]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=227284977]), 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 [[Thomas Hobbes|Hobbes]], the [[Commercial Album|act of being polite]] is something that is never quite [[Social_contract#Thomas_Hobbes.27s_Leviathan_.281651.29|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 [[WP:AGF|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. [[User:Badger Drink|Badger Drink]] ([[User talk:Badger Drink|talk]]) 10:27, 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.--[[User:KojiDude|<font color="00CD32">Koji</font>]][[User talk:KojiDude|<font color="green">Dude</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/KojiDude|<sup><font color="90EE90">(C)</font></sup>]] 16:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
::(e/c) T-rex - is opposing based on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FFrank&diff=222528258&oldid=222497835 length of time] somehow more valid (or less, for that matter)? <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">[[User:Frank|<span style="color:cyan;background:blue">&nbsp;Frank&nbsp;</span>]]&nbsp;{{!}}&nbsp;[[user_talk:Frank|<span style="color:blue;background:cyan">&nbsp;talk&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 16:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Yes, basing a vote on wikipedia experience is more relevant then basing a vote on age --[[User:T-rex|T]]-[[User talk:T-rex|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. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">[[User:Frank|<span style="color:cyan;background:blue">&nbsp;Frank&nbsp;</span>]]&nbsp;{{!}}&nbsp;[[user_talk:Frank|<span style="color:blue;background:cyan">&nbsp;talk&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 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. --[[User:T-rex|T]]-[[User talk:T-rex|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. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">[[User:Frank|<span style="color:cyan;background:blue">&nbsp;Frank&nbsp;</span>]]&nbsp;{{!}}&nbsp;[[user_talk:Frank|<span style="color:blue;background:cyan">&nbsp;talk&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 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.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 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. --[[User:T-rex|T]]-[[User talk:T-rex|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!---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 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. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#B05427">Majorly</span>]]''' <sup>''[[User talk:Majorly|<span style="color:black">talk</span>]]''</sup> 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.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 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. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#B05427">Majorly</span>]]''' <sup>''[[User talk:Majorly|<span style="color:black">talk</span>]]''</sup> 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. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 16:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

:The ''real'' solution: don't reveal your age. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] // [[User:EVula/admin|<span style="color: #366;">&#9775;</span>]] //</span> 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 --[[User:T-rex|T]]-[[User talk:T-rex|rex]] 16:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Sounds like instruction creep. [[User:Useight|Useight]] ([[User talk: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?---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 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. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk: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. '''''<font color="green">[[User:Gazimoff|Gazi]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Gazimoff|moff]]</font>''''' 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". [[User:Calor|Calor]] ([[User talk:Calor|talk]]) 16:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
: Hey, whatever happened to [[WP:AAAD#User is X|WP:AAAD]]? - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 16:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
::The same as with most of the stuff at [[WP:AAAD]] - people ignore it... '''[[User:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #AC0000">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #1F3F53">Why</span>]]''' 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.''' [[User:Badger Drink|Badger Drink]] ([[User talk: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?---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 16:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
:I supported [[User:Anonymous Dissident|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, '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#B05427">Majorly</span>]]''' <sup>''[[User talk:Majorly|<span style="color:black">talk</span>]]''</sup> 16:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
: If he [[Michael Kearney|holds a degree]], why not? - [[User:Mailer diablo|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". [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk: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.) '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#B05427">Majorly</span>]]''' <sup>''[[User talk:Majorly|<span style="color:black">talk</span>]]''</sup> 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, [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Seresin|Generally, 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.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 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 --[[User:T-rex|T]]-[[User talk:T-rex|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.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 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... [[User:Ling.Nut|Ling]].[[User talk:Ling.Nut|Nut]] <sup>[[User:Ling.Nut/3IAR|(WP:3IAR)]]</sup> 17:52, 26 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''&ndash;''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''&ndash;''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. &mdash; [[User:Rdsmith4|Dan]] | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|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. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 19:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
:I agree. A case of [[post hoc ergo propter hoc]] perhaps? [[user:Nichalp|<font color="#0082B8">=Nichalp</font>]] [[User Talk:Nichalp|<font color="#0082B8">«Talk»=</font>]] 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? --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk: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. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#B05427">Majorly</span>]]''' <sup>''[[User talk:Majorly|<span style="color:black">talk</span>]]''</sup> 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. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk: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. &mdash; [[User:Rdsmith4|Dan]] | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|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''&ndash;''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''&ndash;''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. [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn]] ([[User talk: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. &mdash; [[User:Rdsmith4|Dan]] | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|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. [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn]] ([[User talk: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. &mdash; [[User:Rdsmith4|Dan]] | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|talk]] 20:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

:Dan, I really hope you are the one who closes Jamie's RfA. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#B05427">Majorly</span>]]''' <sup>''[[User talk:Majorly|<span style="color:black">talk</span>]]''</sup> 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? --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk: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? --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk: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. &mdash; [[User:Rdsmith4|Dan]] | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|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. [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]] {{IPA|&#448;}} [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]] 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. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#B05427">Majorly</span>]]''' <sup>''[[User talk:Majorly|<span style="color:black">talk</span>]]''</sup> 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. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk: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. &mdash; [[User:Rdsmith4|Dan]] | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|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. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk: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 rule]]s 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. &mdash; [[User:Rdsmith4|Dan]] | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|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. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk: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? '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#B05427">Majorly</span>]]''' <sup>''[[User talk:Majorly|<span style="color:black">talk</span>]]''</sup> 00:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::Is it really necessary to personalise this discussion? --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk: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. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#B05427">Majorly</span>]]''' <sup>''[[User talk:Majorly|<span style="color:black">talk</span>]]''</sup> 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. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuorum|talk]]) 00:19, 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. - [[User:Revolving Bugbear|<font color="006666">Revolving Bugbear</font>]] 00:55, 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&mdash;you can take that to the bank!&mdash;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. [[User:Ling.Nut|Ling]].[[User talk:Ling.Nut|Nut]] <sup>[[User:Ling.Nut/3IAR|(WP:3IAR)]]</sup> 04:14, 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 [[WP:POTENTIAL|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 [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Camaron1|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. [[User:Camaron|Camaron | Chris]] <small>[[User talk:Camaron|(talk)]]</small> 11:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

== Promote as "default position". Hypothetical situation ==

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 [[WP:IAR|IAR]] and vet the candidate themselves. (the crat chat on that would be quite interesting) --[[User:Ron Ritzman|Ron Ritzman]] ([[User talk:Ron Ritzman|talk]]) 12:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:19, 11 October 2008

Nagaragawa Convention Center
長良川国際会議場
The Nagaragawa Convention Center
Map
Location2695-2 Nagara Fukumitsu
Gifu, Gifu Prefecture
Japan 〒502-0817
Coordinates35°26′28″N 136°46′07″E / 35.44121°N 136.768558°E / 35.44121; 136.768558
OwnerGifu
TypeConvention center
Capacity1,689
Construction
Built1995
OpenedSeptember 1, 1995
Website
Homepage Template:Ja icon

The Nagaragawa Convention Center (長良川国際会議場, Nagaragawa Kokusai Kaigijō) is a multi-purpose convention center in the city of Gifu, Gifu Prefecture, Japan. The name literally translates to Nagara River International Convention Center, but the official English translation drops "international."

Along with the Gifu Memorial Center, the Nagaragawa Sports Plaza and Mirai Hall, it is part of the World Event and Convention Complex Gifu.[1]

Construction

The convention center was built to promote Gifu as a good location for large conventions and has many enticements to attract both domestic and international groups to hold events in the city. The famed architect Tadao Ando designed the structure,[1] giving it a unique, egg-shaped look from the outside, making it immediately recognizable.

It opened on September 1, 1995, and is managed by the city's Public Hall Management Group.

Facilities

The convention center with the Gifu Miyako Hotel in the background

The main hall of the convention center is the largest in all of Gifu Prefecture. It is mainly used for concerts and as a central location for conventions. With an area near 1,206 m2 (12,981 sq ft), it seats 1,689 people, but the floors and walls are adjustable, offering many difference configurations.[1][2] It was named one of Japan's Top 100 Venues for musical performances.

There is also an international conference room located in the dome portion of the egg-like structure. A portion of the wall can open up to a view of the Nagara River, Mount Kinka and Gifu Castle.[1] The room is suitable for mid-sized international conventions and can provide simultaneous interpretations in six languages.[2] There are also small, medium and large meeting rooms available for more private meetings.

The total floor space for the main hall and the eight other rooms is 2,332 m2 (25,101 sq ft), allowing seating for over 2,400 people.[2]

Access

Gifu Bus provides public transportation from both JR Gifu Station and Meitetsu Gifu Station downtown. Riders can get off at either the "Nagaragawa Kokusai Kaigijō Kitaguchi" or the "Nagaragawa Kokusai Kaigijō-mae" bus stop.

External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Nagaragawa Convention Center.

References

  1. ^ a b c d General Guidance. Nagaragawa Convention Center. Accessed July 2, 2008.
  2. ^ a b c Convention Support. Gifu Convention and Visitors Bureau. Accessed July 2, 2008.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=244544648"