Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 112

message: I understand that all users who are closing RfAs early mean well, but I think we have now reached the point where the speed with which RfAs are being closed is making people feel far more bitten than had the RfA been left to run its course. I would like to remind everyone that the usual reason why we close RfAs early is to spare the candidate's feelings - ie. to avoid a mounting flood of opposition that could be demoralising. That is quite different from someone determining that the candidate has no chance of succeeding and closing that RfA when only a couple of people have yet commented on it. This risks leaving the unbsuccessful candidate not with the view that the Wikipedia community doesn't feel they're ready yet, but feeling that one or two people have sunk their RfA. I received several emails from upset users and a number of editors have been expressing concerns to me that there is a growing culture of prematurely SNOWing RfAs such that candidates are not being given fair consideration.
I am therefore proposing the following guidelines be followed by someone thinking of closing an RfA early:
# Have enough people commented such that the candidate will feel they have had a fair hearing? 
#: Ideally do not close an RfA before about a dozen editor have offered their opinion and advice.
#: You shouldn't close based on your personal assessment of the candidate (in the same way that AfDs shouldn't be SNOW closed because of your opinion of the merits of the article alone)
# Have you contacted the candidate and asked them if they would like their RfA withdrawn?
#:This really should be the first port of call - if the candidate wants their RfA to continue you are not doing them a favour by withdrawing it.
#:If after some time they have not replied and opposition is mounting, it might then be appropriate to close it early and leave them a kind note
# If in doubt, better to oppose politely giving encouragement and suggestions for improvement rather than to pull the RfA completely.
Generally, I would like to see people a little more reluctant to speedy close RfAs and a bit more ready to discuss the situation with the candidates. Remember that SNOW closes of RfA evolved as a kindness to the candidate, it isn't some essential part of the process. The clo.se should be seen as a last resort and ideally should be done with the agreement of the candidate. WjBscribe 18:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said.  Ral315 (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The principle I use when closing an RFA early is "Is anything new being added?". If there is nothing new being added and does not stand a chance of succeeding, I will close it. I agree totally with WJBscribe's description here. In addition, please follow the archival instructions on Wikipedia:Bureaucrats or expect an angry note :-) --Deskana (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  (ec)Thirded. If that's proper English. — Rudget speak.work 19:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if it's not standard English yet, it certainly is analogic change in progress. — Dan | talk 20:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Fourthed. Secretlondon (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey, if ANI is rumbling about having clerks, maybe we can too! ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: A bit late, but I agree as well. RFA serves a double purpose as a form of editor review, and even for one that's obviously headed for failure the opposes can be useful to someone willing to learn from them. (Witness Elonka's RFA history.) —  iridescent 17:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree too.  I was a bit irked when the Michaelsanders RfA was closed prematurely, as I felt he would have picked up at least a few supporters given a couple of days. As far as I'm aware, he didn't request for it to be withdrawn. Deb (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: SNOW closes - guidelines

message: Exhibit A being this from a few minutes ago. This is, in clear view, a case of biting a new user. I think consensus here is pretty clear that it's bad, and that we should do everything to stop it. Thoughts on the event -> warning -> block application here, and anyone up for making a warning of some sort? Daniel 03:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ouch. Yes, that's the sort of thing we should avoid. Acalamari 03:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit summary only contributes to it and from where I sit that comment was inappropriate. Daniel 03:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I should hope no blocking is ever necessary for this sort of thing. Biting of newbies is extremely unhealthy; surely this can be explained to anyone? All we need are a few dedicated users to write stern notes (not warnings, please -- just notes, as between colleagues) to people who leave unnecessarily harsh oppose comments. — Dan | talk 03:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It was a combination of "strong oppose" (see the discussion above), your edit summary, and how it was quite combatative. Furthermore, "I never said anything relating that the user may be blocked" - I was talking about applying warnings to you, not the candidate. Daniel 03:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Edit conflict: No, you misunderstand. No one is saying that you said that user should be blocked. What Daniel is proposing is that we consider making it a bannable offense to bite newbies through strong opposes on SNOW closes (in your case, I think the edit summary was most offensive). While I do not support this, I do think a warning template might be in this case. However, I think we have to make case we only make these warnings in clear newbie biting SNOW closes. In the case of normal users, I think strong opposes can significantly contribute to the discussion. SorryGuy 03:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (To SorryGuy:) A semantic but important quibble: please avoid confusing a block with a ban. A ban is a strong and final penalty for persistent and harmful activities. Nobody has even mentioned such a thing in this conversation. Also, warning templates cause more problems than they solve. What would be so hard about actually writing out a note (as I have done? — Dan | talk 03:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, of course, and I do understand the difference. I simply misspoke. May I ask why you feel that warning templates cause more harm? I have written out warnings myself, but warning templates often make things easier, especially for those that wouldn't otherwise be inclined to assist in the warning. SorryGuy 05:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Templates tend to be abrupt and speak with the voice of authority: they read like a dictum from The Management or some such. I'm thinking of the old vandalism warning templates and those like it, whose style ("Your recent edits are in breach of X regulation. If you continue to violate it you will be blocked" -- it might as well say "To whom it may concern") is not appropriate for messages among equals, from one editor in good standing to another. Even admins and other folks in positions of responsibility have a duty to treat all good-faith editors alike. It turns out there is already a fairly harmless template for asking people not to bite newbies (), though the useless image tags it immediately as boilerplate text, and gives it a very impersonal sense. The feeling of a message is just as important as the message itself. If it looks personal (and the best way to do this is by actually making it personal, which anyway is not very hard) it will almost certainly be more effective than any template. Does this make sense? — Dan | talk 07:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I was suggesting that is it time to start warning users about biting, with the view to block if they ignored said warnings. I don't propose nor support blocking straight-out, nor should anyone really. Daniel 03:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear, I don't think anyone was arguing for blocking straight out. SorryGuy 05:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: If indeed it was a mistake, then no problem; but you must recognize that it looked like a very offhand sort of emphasis -- repeating letters of words is a recognized practice in internet discussions. Its force is something like "[content of utterance] is so obvious I don't even know why I'm bothering to write about it", which is rude in an adminship discussion. — Dan | talk 03:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec) It could be taken as patronizing, teasing, or maybe insulting in some circumstances (as Daniel may have felt). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a template for biting is a good idea, we have them for most everything else (vandalism, NPA, 3RR, AGF, etc). However, I don't think it's really a blockable offense. Maybe if it crosses the line of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. Useight (talk) 05:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, we do have a template for "biting" newbies here: :Template:Uw-bite. It should be sufficient for most "biting" message although it is probably best to leave a personal message to users for individual cases. --Hdt83    Chat 05:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I think those should be listed here with the rest of them. But, yeah, individual messages might be better in this case.  Useight (talk) 07:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: (1) Nobody has proposed any new policies -- just a strategy for dealing with a percieved problem. Instruction creep irrelevant. (2) Nobody disagrees with your assessment of RFA. All that has been suggested here is that people who do write unhelpful comments be encouraged not to. (3) You must not be watching very closely. Remember why WP:SNOW was invented: to stave off the legions of people who just couldn't resist the opportunity to call an editor insufficient, even his nom was already failing badly. — Dan | talk 14:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rdsmith4. I said "Most early closed "newbie" RfA's I've participated in seem to consist of helpful advice ". You've turned this into "You must not be watching very closely". Key words here are participate in. I don't participate or even see very snow RfA. For your reference the last two I've commented in are Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CJMiller and Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Hardcore_Hak. Reviewing these I see nothing but words of encouragment from all opposers. Pedro :  Chat   16:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Is there any reason to believe that the words "strong oppose" come off more harshly than, say, closing the nomination as a failure?  (Such closes being standard accepted practice, of course.)  I've certainly seen newbies get upset over the RFA being closed.  I agree that we should be polite, but I just don't see a good way to have a failed RFA without making the candidate feel bad, if they're the type of candidate who would feel bad over such a thing.  Friday (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that reactionary supports are not a good thing (not that I'm saying that one was). But is that any different from "Moral Support" which we often see? In a sense, at least with a moral support it's a stab at pointing out that RfA is a discussion and not a vote. Pedro :  Chat   16:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it time to start warning users about it?

message: Hi. I was just wondering if there is active opposition to optional questions and why my optional questions were reverted. Thanks. Takenages (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering you participated here →Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Takenages, and are aware why, this question would seem to be Forum shopping--Hu12 (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you haven't given specific reasons why you thought the questions were inappropriate. As a matter of fact, several people at WP:ANI expressed that they felt the questions were relevant and two nominees went so far as to post question responses on my talk page. So could you please explain your exclusion of my questions beside your personal opinion that does not seem to meet with community consensus? Takenages (talk) 06:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's disruption of Wikipedia to make a point.WP:POINT--Hu12 (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain specifically why you feel my questions are "disruption" when so many of your peers feel differently. Your removal of questions without explanation has been far more disruptive and "pointy" and your personal attacks are certainly unacceptable. Takenages (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Optional questions 

message: I don't know what to do with this one. Help? J-ſtanTalkContribs 04:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not much, apparently, since it's been snow-closed. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 09:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/theokaythrill|Malformed RfA]] 

message: I snow closed this one, without asking permission from the editor... A teensy weensy number of edits, nowhere near enough for anyone to offer any constructive criticism. AvruchTalk 23:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably a good idea given the user in question was getting biten like this. When removing a snow close from WP:RFA however, I don't believe "heh, duh" is the best edit summary to use. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be sure to format them properly, like this. --Deskana (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye aye on the formatting. Regarding the heh, duh... I thought about how that would look afterwards, but it was directed at myself cause I screwed it up the first time around by actually blanking the whole RfA instead of just removing the transcluding template ;-P Was not at all directed at the candidate, apologies for having it look that way. AvruchTalk 00:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danswiki|Danswiki RfA]]

message: Did I miss a turn somewhere? When did we set an age limit on adminship? I thought I saw quite a furor earlier this year over ageism, and I recall that there were already some teenage admins around. In earlier discussions I recall reading that age was irrelevant and that teenage admins were held to meeting the same bar as other nom's. It just seems odd to see it used as an oppose rationale. Cheers, :) MikeReichold  00:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An age limit was never set. However, there does seem to be a sentiment on a point where young is too young, despite the fuzzy rhetoric to the contrary. Full disclosure: I became an admin when I was 16. —Kurykh 00:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well this may be extremely hard to believe, but on some place I can't really remember now I became an admin when I was 10. And I did just fine. I can't even believe I did that. -- ~ Ryan A. Taylor || ← that was a link to my user page! OMGWTFBBQ || DUMPING GROUND!</font> 22:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's see: no, never, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. The main thing being that if you don't say your age, who knows? Prodego talk 00:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Prodego is right that sometimes there is no way to know, however.. When you do know, I think extremely young candidates can appropriately be evaluated based on their age in the absence of other information. Or even with it. Pre-teens just have too much to learn about people and stress, and they should learn it elsewhere first before adminship.  AvruchTalk 00:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that I have encountered a few admins that were less than 15, and many more in the 15-17 range. But we need to ask ourselves, if this user didn't say their age, would we be opposing? Truly that is the question, because if a candidate has acted in an appropriate manner, then they aren't going to abuse the tools, and to decide that is the entire point of an RfA. We need to remember an RfA determines if a user can be trusted with a few extra buttons, not whether this person is qualified for some sort of power position. The more we imagine RfA as a gateway to power, the more exclusive, and the more 'powerful' adminship becomes. The more 'power' admins get, the more people need to jump through hoops to become admins, and the people willing to do that are increasing more likely to be in it for this new 'power' we created, not as much because they are good editors. RfA isn't broken, voters are. No one knows the candidates anymore, and instead try to judge competence by editcount. Prodego talk 00:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your premise. We base our judgements of RfA candidates on what we know, not what we don't. There may be many things we don't know about all kinds of people and candidates that would change how we think of them - but in the mean time, they remain things we don't know. Once we find out, however, there is no reason not to incorporate that information into our assessment. A lack of meaningful participation in dispute resolution for a 50 year old (who presumably has a fair amount of life experience in that area anyway) is much different than a lack of participation in DR for a 12 year old, who clearly has next to no meaningful life experience in... well, most things. AvruchTalk 01:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we can base our opposition on anything a user is, rather than has done, you would introduce a whole slew of issues, which, if taken to extremes, would also introduce political reasons to oppose as well. i.e: "Oppose this user is in party x". Simply put, if a user choses to reveal something about themselves, that should not interfere with their actions on the project. There is no reason to believe that your 50 year old would perform any better then the 12 year old would, and making assumptions about people is a very bad thing to do. Everyone can edit, we should not make people feel compelled to hide who they are. Prodego talk 01:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not intending to flood or monopolize this discussion, but if someone joined a neo-Nazi party (Godwin's Law...) and I knew about it, that would certainly bear on my estimation of that persons judgement. Of course, being young is in no way comparable to joining a neo-Nazi party but it is the extreme that demonstrates the concept in this case. If we know about factors that are likely to affect judgement, such as youth, then we should weigh that appropriately in deciding whether to support or oppose. It may not be a deciding factor (as I indicated in my recent oppose for PrestonH, with a sufficient track record in areas of concern I'd switch to support later on) but it is a factor. AvruchTalk 01:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Judge an RfA candidate based solely on their merits as a potential administrator. If they have a history of interpreting and executing Wikipedia policy in a sound and reasonable method, sounds like they'd be a good administrator, despite being 14. If they have a history of being an idiot and attacking people, sounds like they woudn't be a good administrator, despite being 42. Pretty simple. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To me that means "Evaluate the likelihood that editor-X will abuse the tools/make egregious errors of misunderstanding or judgement." For me, that includes everything related to the track record of a particular editor as well as anything else I might know that is relevant - including extreme youth, which increases (in my mind) the chances of unpredictable maturity-related issues. AvruchTalk 01:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there is a difference, of course, but the two concepts are not orthogonal. How many "mature" five-year-olds do you know for instance? But part of the problem is that nobody in this discussion has yet attempted to define "maturity". How can you argue about something that you haven't agreed on a definition of? Isn't that kind of "immature"? :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Counter-argument: how many five-year-olds do you know that edit Wikipedia? :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ... constructively? J-ſtanTalkContribs 02:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Touché. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know where my towel is. Do you? J-ſtanTalkContribs 02:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Only on Wikipedia could one answer an age limit question with an actual limit... Sean William  @ 02:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: \lim_{\mathrm{age} \to \infty} \mathrm{probability~of~senility} = 100% bibliomaniac15 06:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't read math, does that say something like 'As age approaches infinity, the probability of maturity approaches 100%'?AvruchTalk 02:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not a counter-argument, that is avoiding the issue. It seems very likely that by most most people's definition of "maturity", that is positively correlates with chronological age, at least up until some age that people here seem unwilling to even speculate about. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You lost me at the third indent-colon. Could you please explain? (now what's really scary is that I understood Prodego's expression at first glance. I'm a nerd) J-ſtanTalkContribs 02:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: That would not contradict the limit. Indeed, that it will rapidly climb then drop off is nearly certain. It could be described as a curve with a horizontal asymptote at 100%, for J-stan. Also keep in mind this is probability. Prodego talk 02:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  <<post edit conflict>> I think I'm less "mature" than I was at 14, meaning more relaxed, more into living for the moment, and less assiduous. Unfortunately, I've also found that it's true that it's all down-hill after 45. As to confusion, "the likelihood of confusion approaches 100% as age increases." Cheers, :) MikeReichold  02:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Borne out by medical research: risk of Alzheimers doubles every 5 years after age 55, till 1 in 3 have the disease at 85. AvruchTalk 02:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hell, I'm less mature than I was at 3:00! I think that there are more minors with the mop than we'd think. Younger people seem to have a significant amount of time spent looking for things to do. J-ſtanTalkContribs 03:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: And I would never have guessed Kurykh was a teenager-- at least as articulate as I am and probabley better organized thoughts. Cheers, :) MikeReichold  03:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Minor admins of the world unite! bibliomaniac15 03:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I'm in shock - I was always under the impression that the extremely mature and well reasoned administrator Bibliomaniac15 was at least 40! I think this shows you can't judge a book by its cover.... Ryan Postlethwaite 03:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maturity is often defined as the ability to perform socially appropriate actions at appropriate times. If you want a counterexample of maturity, it would be the subject of this. (I can sense a libel suit coming my way...) --Kurykh 03:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let's think for a second about what it takes to become a good RfA candidate: a long standing reputation of being a good wikipedian (discovered through edits history, general problem solving skills, and interactions with others, and it takes a large number of these to judge this on. Never thought I'd defend editcountitis). If these have been displayed in an editor, they would make a fine candidate. What of those require an age over 14? And hey, if a 24 year old can have multiple doctorates, why can't an 11 year old get a few extra buttons? :) J-ſtanTalkContribs 04:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually had the whole Essjay thing in mind when I stated that we should judge based solely on a candidate's merits (which includes ignoring what real-world qualifications they have, such as degrees, as well as the standard other stuff like age, gender, race, orientation, blah blah...). EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ageism, so far as doubting someone's ability or maturity based on age-related factors, should be applied cautiously, if at all. It is a well-known fact that a great number of Wikipedia's admins are teenagers (and, in some cases, even younger). It should be remembered that we have sysops even at the lower end of that spectrum, at ages 13, and 14, who are doing just fine in their positions of trust. Perhaps I am biased, being 12, but I see ageism in these respects as something that could only serve as an obstacle to someone's potential. Let age alone not be a judging factor of one's maturity or ability, but instead examine these factors of a candidate's suitability independently of age, which is an unchangable characteristic. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Ageism has quite recently become a factor in determining who gets to become admins and who don't, and I mean recently...though its mostly due to the candidate being naive and publicly providing this information to others or via userpages..and as AD mentioned above, most admins....and I mean most..(over 65% or so) are teenagers and only a handful are minors..but then we usually have more bigger issues to consider since most opposes are also based on edit counts, experiences, recent conflicts between other users and Personal conflicts as well....Maturity can't actually be judged on age alone since some users are far to knowledgeable for their age and as J-stan- pointed out above..hehe.. do we really know who is on the other side of that Monitor?  X-Files theme being played in the background...--Cometstyles 14:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd agree with AD that age should not be the sole factor. I merely believe it should be a single factor, and that its weight should increase in the absence of other information. I assume that teenagers and pre-teens are less capable of handling the role of an administrator, but its important to evaluate each candidate individually to look for proof contradicting the rule. A capable 12 year old administrator is absolutely an exception, not a rule. AvruchTalk 14:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I harbor a strong suspicion that a fourteen year-old who earns the mop is more likely to remain a dedicated Wikipedian for life - the younger we are when we inculcate our habits, the stronger they stick. bd2412 T 03:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Well said! Cheers, :) MikeReichold  04:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think younger editors have a tendancy to make adminship their "goal" on Wikipedia and once they have it, they can lose interest in Wikipedia. I would say that this balances out with what you've said so that we don't notice any net change. That said, I don't agree with judging people based on their age. Age is just a number. It's how you act that counts. --Deskana (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can tell very young users, or those lacking conventional higher education. Those with high IQs are a little difficult, but eventually are revealed. As most tend to insist on adhering strictly to the confusing "rules", but only when it comes to "regular" editors -- not themselves or among other admins. Young people see things mostly in black and white. To be mature is many things. Though, most young people can tolerate stress better than older people, and learn the "rules"... that's why they are thought to make good admins. But, to understand the more complex human conditions, they are at a disadvantage -- and potentially detrimental to the community. The same can be said of old uneducated people too. lol. - Jeeny (talk) 05:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Deskana. I sometimes get the feeling that our younger editors see adminship as something coveted, and they make it their goal. Of course, I can't prove any of this, but it's a connection I've made. On a different note, I would like to know how many of the admins desysopped by ArbCom were under 18. I don't recall of any major incidents with our younger admins. It seems the troublemakers are the 20+ crowd. :whistles: Nishkid64 (talk) 05:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I can comment again, I think that Deskana's idea about some younger editors desiring the mop as their goal can perhaps be linked to the misguided notion about Wikipedia being some kind of game, where one can score points for becoming an admin, writing an article, or reverting vandalism. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: and one more note, ageism is sometimes a good thing. There's a reason 13 year olds can't drive. This doesn't apply directly to WP, but let's not raise the banner against something that is not ALWAYS a mistake... Epthorn (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with that. I think the real problem with having 'ageism' is that people will then just lie about their age. I would rather at least know and be able to determine based on that information. But if someone else wants to disagree with that they shouldn't face 'warnings' in my view. Epthorn (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Age is certainly not meaningless, interesting concept or not; it is a measure of physical and mental development. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Age is an arbatory measure based on the earths rotation around the sun, physical developement means nothing here, mental development is only assessable by what is already written to say hey your only 15 so you need to wait 12 months doesnt mean that a person will be any better an editor because of the wait. Hence while its a interesting concept for assessment ultimately as a stand alone line in the sand its flawed.  Gnangarra 16:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Age is not arbitary, and to suggest that it is shows rather poor judgment, or a poor understanding of what the word "arbitrary" actually means. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It would be foolish to deny the relationship between age and reliability, but it would be equally foolish to give too much credence to such a relationship. In short, I don't take age into account much, but I certainly understand why others do. Unlike other "isms", "ageism" is based on tendencies that really do exist. 1 != 2 16:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And it would be equally foolish to give too little credence to such a relationship. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The older an editor the more likely a person carries political, relgious, racial, social, educational, and physical baggage, this is the beauty of Wikipedia we can and generally do operate as a community where only the actions of an editor should be considered, over coming all of the real life barriers that hinder knowledge exchange. Is it more foolish to learn what there is learn irregardless of the knowledge source, or to exclude learning by creating barriers. Gnangarra 05:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The older an editor the more likely he knows there is more than black and white and rules are not meant to be followed by letter. I welcome teens in Wikipedia but they don't need to be an admin to write articles. There are many adults who aren't wise—even way above average intelligence and a PhD does not prevent you from abusing the admin powers. But teens don't even have the chance to be wise. That's why I oppose every candidate younger than 20—maybe for very good reasons I would make few exceptions. I understand the wish to show off in school with this rank (I don't condemn this) but we wouldn't do Wikipedia a flavor with the appointment of a teen and maybe not even the teen. The thresholds of other users are lower than mine but I guess no one would like to have a 12 year old being an admin. Of course he or she can correctly decide whether it's vandalism when someone empties an article or writes something gay but this could be detected by a bot, too. We need admins for weighing up relevance for Wikipedia and to help solving NPOV disputes and this requires much experience. Gaining experience means making mistakes. As I said before teens are welcomed to make their mistakes in Wikipedia and thereby gaining experience—but they should not be able to block their disputants or set up facts by deleting articles. --mms (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is exactly the kind of age-ist bullshit that burns me up.  If the only thing you are looking at is age then you are clearly prejudiced and not doing your job as an RFA evaluator.  Rather than getting hung-up on a single number, you should be looking at the user's contribution history.  If you can tell they are immature based on their actions then fine, but the presence of immaturity can occur in 25 year olds just as easily as 15 year olds.  As someone who has known and worked with extremely gifted teenagers (including 13-year-old college students), I can tell you from personal experience that some individuals are more mature than the typical person twice their age.  The candidates at RFA are supposed to be evaluated individually and not via a set of arbitrary and rigid standards.  Oh, and since the community has had 13-year-old Bureaucrat, I don't think the community would be all that bothered by a 12-year-old admin, provided a qualified and mature 12-year-old wanted the job.  Dragons flight (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm part of the community and I'm bothered. Age is one of my criteria which I think is legitimate to have. It's not up to you to judge my work as an RfA evaluator. Every possible criterion can be viewed as a prejudice. --mms (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You cannot conclusively say that "User X is a former vandal who stopped fairly recently, ergo, they are unfit to be an admin" either. People are perfectly capable of stopping their vandalism, becoming productive, and making a good admin very soon after. That doesn't mean vandalism three months ago can't be considered. -Amarkov moo! 17:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that I can say that most of the teens on Wikipedia that contribute heavily to admin/policy related issues are not your average teens.  What kind of teens would sit around all day and contribute to the kind of issues that come up on Wikipedia?  I also believe that upon becoming an admin, a teen would grow up very fast.  Malinaccier (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ageism and RfA 

message: :Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall has been nominated for deletion.  Regulars here are likely to be interested.  The discussion is at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall.  Discussion should be there, not here.  GRBerry 05:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall nominated for deletion 

message: Using the definition used by the bot that updates the List of admins page (Active = at least 30 edits in the last 2 months), we will shortly reach the level of 1000 active admins. Just something to think about. NoSeptember 15:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. FloNight (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I've certainly noticed over the last couple of weeks that we seem to be keeping on top of the generic admin hangouts like WP:AIV and WP:RFPP better than we have done in the past - now we just to get the less well known backlogs down. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And what might some of those less well known backlogs be? bd2412 T 16:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: there's plenty, see below for a few examples - I personally don't frquent any of them, but I think it would be a good time to start. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know about "lesser known backlogs", but AfD could use more hands - 200+ waiting for to be closed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old. WjBscribe 16:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Copyright problems & Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images also have a large backlog. Almost a month old backlog there. Garion96 (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: There's also the new newpage patrol; I knocked fifty or so out last night from November 11, plus several deletions. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad to say that I'm one of the new active admins helping towards 1000. If there's anywhere I can help, I'm usually available. I do spend most of my time at CAT:CSD, with some glances at WP:AIV, WP:UAA, and WP:ANI, but I'm available for other tasks. Just let me know. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1000 active admins

message: request for adminship is what we should all try and avoid. It was clear after a few opposes that this was not going to succeed, yet this is a user in good standing. Effort should be make in these RfA's to offer constructive critisism, almost turning it into a big editor review. What I can see at present is a lot of users jumping in with a one line oppose that serves very little purpose or help to the candidate. In these situations, we should try and offer advice to the candidate so they can improve for the future - if this isn't possible, it's best to recuse yourself from commenting. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with Ryan Postlethwaite here. When it is a clear a nomination is not going to pass and an editor has already contacted the user regarding a snow close, there really is no reason to repeat already stated opposes. It is at this point that we should do our best to either encourage the user or simply not comment. SorryGuy  Talk  03:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, this is a severe problem with having to ask a user if they are OK with a close - this editor appears to be offline - the next time they check, the opposition could be massive, not only putting them off running for adminship again, but also contributing in the future. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I completely agree with Ryan's argument, which is why I tried to be constructive in my criticism. Ganging up on an editor is very unproductive, and just creates ill-will all the way around. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Someone says what Ryan says here once every few months, and yet we still do it. We all need to mellow out and put the shoe on the other foot as much as possible. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My oppose was about as constructive and mellow as I could be, to be honest. Daniel 12:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Makes sense, but I doubt any such thing will happen.  If go through the archives of this page, you'll realize that set standards seem to be be debated alot.  ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 17:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: So you think that a bunch of one liners, repeating the same thing is helpful to a candidate? They only serve to pile on the numbers, and offer no help to the candidate. As I said, unless you are prepared to go through the candidates contributions and offer a good review and some advice, it's best to stay out of it. Oppose - lack of experience serves no purpose after the first 4 people have said the same thing. Tell the candidate where to comment, areas of the project that would help improve the way he edits or simply how changes in his attitude could make him a better wikipedian. At least 75% of those opposes serve to pile on, and merely kick the candidate in the teeth. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think they are helpful. They are not negative though. If it helps, I'll help close such requests if I see them, to avoid this. Although, I'm not sure someone like me should be doing it. I'll always give good feedback, as I did on this RfA. Redrocketboy 18:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: While the RfA process remains a ballot by another name though, such oppose !votes are inevitable, to counter the support !votes. Everyone knows that the percentage of votes is really all that matters, it's mystifying as to why there's such a widespread reluctance to admit the fact. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're suggesting that 15 opposes with 1 support is an acceptable number before this was archived? That would be a smack in the face to any contributor who put in a request for adminship in good faith. Yeah, if it's not obvious, there needs to be opposes to counteract the supports - but this was clearly not going to pass after the first few opposes, so why did everyone else need to comment to say exactly the same thing? Ryan Postlethwaite 18:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I'm suggesting that neither you nor anyone else has a crystal ball. "Clearly"? If that word had been used in an article it would have been challenged, as I'm challenging it now. If the RfA process is considered to be so brutal that it can't always be allowed to run its course, then look at the process, make it less brutal. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The process shouldn't be changed if the fault is the candidate (which, to be fair, sometimes it is). While I don't think we should be jerks by any stretch of the imagination, we also shouldn't be handing out cotton candy and fluffy cuddly-wuddly little teddy bears to the candidates. If they can't stand up to some light grilling, they have no business being an administrator. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was just "light-grilling", then why should a candidate be pulled out of the nomination to spare their feelings; because you believe that you have a crystal ball? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you and I need to define what we're discussing; I'm talking about RfAs in general, and you're (apparently) talking about this RfA in particular. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I am not talking about any specific RfA. I too am talking generally. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: At least this RfA shows that the process isn't broken. Daniel 04:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gp75motorsports 2]] 

message: An ongoing recall discussion is location at User:Mercury/RFC. Mercury 04:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recall. 

message: Wikipedia:Admin Accountability Alliance. Please give your comments on its talk page. >Radiant< 18:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open for recall: an idea 

message: Why don't we simply adapt existing processes, rather than try to reinvent the wheel? We should take the standard process for a user conduct RfC and adapt it to an administrator conduct RfC, with a higher certification threshold (say 6). Like an RfC, the outcome doesn't need to be sanctions imposed or adminship resigned - but it can be. See my post . 
Essentially, it seems like Wikipedia:Request for administrator recall or Wikipedia:Requests for administrator review would formalise and standardize the review process for administrators using what people are already accustomed to as a format. AvruchTalk 22:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about arbcom or RFC? Can't either of those fill this need? 1 != 2 22:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of them are rather slow and unwieldy, especially arbcom. bibliomaniac15 23:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Slow and unwieldy' is a good when we're talking about desysopping.  Requiring parties to gather evidence, present their statements in some sort of organized fashion, and cool their heels a bit before a decision is taken is much more helpful than a free-for-all finger-pointing-and-shouting match.  'Fast and easy' is a way to get sloppy results and mob justice.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Well said Ten, "slow and unwieldy" is just another way for saying evidence needs to be presented and discussion needs to go forward in a structured way. The last thing we needs a a quick and easy desysoping method. 1 != 2 16:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Avruch, variations on that theme have been suggested a number of times before.  My stock response regarding the problems with most such proposed schemes can be found here.  You may also find the rest of that discussion interesting.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: An alternative recall idea

message: For the second time in a few days I've been disapointed at what I've seen in snow RfA's. We need to offer candidates advice so they can improve in the future. When a candidate only has a couple of moral supports and 9 opposes, an comment like Oppose - not enough experience does not help the candidate in anyway whatsoever. They've been told this in the other 9 opposes and that comment just merely adds to the pile on. Offer some advice - what areas could improve on? Are there any areas you suggest they edit? Do they need to change anything about there editing? - if you can't be bothered to do this, then there really isn't much point in commenting as there's plenty of others that are able to offer constructive advice to candidates without just simply adding an extra number. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with Ryan here; Wikipedia does not have a good reputation particularly as it is, we need to be supporting newcomers and offering advice, not just simply telling them where to get off too. However, I have seen numerous threads like this over time spans of months, but nothing really changes, yet I suppose, neither do some users, so its just like a vicious circle... Qst 23:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I completely disgree with Ryan here. In fact I think that the whole wikpipedia administrator idea is flawed. On the one hand it's supposed to be "no big deal", yet on the other hand we have hordes of teenagers gasping for it, in spite of having no experience of actually trying to write an encyclopedia. That's what is turning people off. Well, it's turning me off anyway. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's got nothing to do with what I'm saying - the idea I'm trying to get across is that two word opposes serve no purpose when an RfA is in a snow position. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're both right. :) ++Lar: t/c 00:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I should point out the RFA in question involved a user who's been here over a year.  But I think the only way we can get people to stop is to warn them about biting and block if the pattern continues (and theres consensus to do so).  ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 23:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's even more reason to give more credit to the candidate and give them a proper review. In the RfA I'm talking about, the user had plenty of contributions to go through, but some people commenting didn't seem bothered. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Instead of posting about this issue here repeatedly, have you talked to the editors who do it? Maybe they're the ones less likely to check WT:RFA, I don't know. –Pomte 00:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, I tried in the RfA as well.... This is a more general reminder to everyone. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a very big reason to at least try to offer some words of advice or encouragement rather than "punching the new guys in the face" as it has been called. If we just cast them aside, they may leave Wikipedia altogether and we lose any valuable contributions they would have otherwise made. I think we should avoid "Strong Oppose" in the cases of new editors and instead try to let them down easy with pointers on how to improve. However, there's a fine line that has to be walked so RFA doesn't turn into Editor Review. Useight (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that misses the point. Why Strong Oppose as opposed to Oppose? Isn't that just an emotional appeal to inevitable "pile-oners"? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem as I see it is people are expressing concerns about piling on, and yet other people are expressing concerns about snowball-closing RfA's too early. I can't see these two principles working mutually. For the record, I also totally agree with Malleus Fatuarum on teenage administrator-wannabes, a few who have gone through RfA recently and been 'victims' of biting. Daniel 00:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is the key Daniel. When the RfA starts to turn into a pile on, with users just adding numbers to the opposes and offering nothing to help the candidate, it's the time to close. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO this is just another example of why WP is becoming more and more an encyclopedia edited by a small circle of users. This is inevitable, as the rules always increase in number and size, the familiarity and experience of the existing users always increases, and their patience and ability to adapt to the newcomer's level decreases. New users need 10 times more effort to familiarize themselves with the don'ts, and old ones have 10 times less the ability to understand them. New ones end up blocked or chased away, and old ones keep expanding the rules. WP:BITE should become a core policy, and WP needs a serious cleanup in the bureaucratic processes. How about applying everywhere the old concept of WP:COMMONSENSE vs the new reality of WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP? NikoSilver 00:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *I'd have to admit that I have a lot of sympathy with  Niko's view. Not all admins have the maturity to be able to distinguish between uncivility (sic) and honesty. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) Ryan: That often happens after only three or four opposers. A recent thread on this page (I'm not sure if it's still active or if it has been archived) had a bureaucrat consensus, if I recall correctly, that three or four opposers was not sufficient to snowball-close an RfA (in addition to having to ask the candidate, etc.). Daniel 00:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: As I said, I did this in the RfA - I guess I'll just have to start spamming talk pages over this, but we should consider making it clear to users that pile on that they should offer something constructive. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The value of comments in snow RfA's 

message: I note that Rdsmith4 has now given a fairly full explanation of his close following PHG's request: , . I think it worth quoting that reply here in the hope of replacing some of the heat above with a little light. WjBscribe 19:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well, if the appointment of Administrators is by consensus or agreement, that definitely was not present then, nor is it present now.  Please show me where your notion of "agreement" is?  Elonka is one of the most controversial and conflict-causing editors on Wikipedia, currently.  That, if anything, runs against the very grain of "agreement" and "consensus". We also scrutinize the 'crats who seek to throw the election ().  Mindraker (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mindraker, your contributions here really aren't helpful. You're just throwing accusations around blindly because you're angry. You've had a very good explanation of the close - which was carried out by an impartial bureaucrat. This page does not exist to allow those unhappy witht he result of an RfA to vent. If you are going to make serious accusations of misconduct as you just did. I suggest you take the advice above and find support for an RfC or take this to ArbCom. Otherwise, I'm going to have to ask you to retract that accusation. WjBscribe 19:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.</div>
I shall quote myself from Elonka's RfA, "When a statement is true, it is not libel or slander, no matter how bad the statement is."  There is no need for me to retract anything.  Mindraker (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The closing rationale

message: Thoughts? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's okay, but I think it takes the same time just writing it out than using this template, if you're main goal is to make life easier doing this. --Hirohisat 年末 11:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd recommend ditching  and just subst:ing the template; if you were to transclude the template (), it wouldn't clean up the code very much, and it would break if someone provided a diff for their answer (though it could be gotten around with ). EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like someone has already fixed some of those issues. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|RFAq}} 

message: Just posting a notification here of the DRV, as this is directly relevant to admins. Lawrence Cohen 17:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DRV closed as overturn AfD (not by me). —Kurykh 19:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall deleted, now on DRV 

message: Cobi [] appears to be doing amazing work with his bot- yet doesn't have a lot of interaction with users, and mainspace wikipedia editing.
I have often wondered if we need a whole new type of wiki-assistant, who were not full fledged admins but had a few of the abilities of admins for more cleaning up/tidying housecleaning work (which Cobi is already doing in abundance) and less user-interaction/settling disputes work.
Cobi is doing oodles of good. Instead of making him an admin- with a whole range of powers, responsibilities, why not simply create a new type of wiki-assistant so we can support and empower Cobi, and more importantly then one user, others like him, in doing the very needed and extremely helpful work they are already doing? 
For example a type of "assistant" as opposed to admin, who could handle non-controversial page deletes, moves, block obvious vandals, etc.?
Thoughts? Sethie (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed before, and has been rejected, not because of its lack of feasibility, but because of technical reasons. —Kurykh 04:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The individual tools could be (technically) given out individually so you could have users who could only delete or only protect, etc., but there is no technical way to restrict people to only "non-controversial" admin tasks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Z-man (talk • contribs) 04:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I suppose you could set up some sort of "assistant", with some admin powers, but the only way I can think of to do this would be to give the assistant power to fully protect a page until an admin could block the user. But then again, they'd have to revert the vandalism, protect the page, and report the user to AIV and follow the user's contribs reverting and protecting any page they vandalized while waiting for a block to go through. Then we'd have to go around unprotecting the pages. Seems like more work than it already is. Hmm, maybe the assistants could be given power to block users for specific reasons that are more concrete, such as 3RR, or to delete images. I'm just bouncing ideas here and I'll keep thinking about it. Useight (talk) 07:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep in mind that any "sub-admin" position would need some sort of approval process, which would be almost identical to RfA... we'd effectively be making a whole 'nother layer of business just for a nominal benefit. I'm not convinced that this is a great idea; if someone is good enough to be an "admin assistant", they're probably good enough to be an admin. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The cool thing about our system is that admins can do whatever work they want one day, and then something different another. I'd hate to see a jr. admin that serves only one purpose. Besides that, those who concentrate on just one thing, like a permanent jurist, may have a little too much influence after a matter of time. It's not a terrible idea, and I see from where it derives, but it seems a bit more complex to install than it may be worth. I just don't see it as a necessity at this time. the_undertow talk 07:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Do we need a new type of admin?

message: I have requested a bot to update RFBs along with RFAs, since the Tangobot doesn't seem to, on this page. Thanks. Redrocketboy 07:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is handy, and thank you, although the question of wether we're likely to see another RfB in the near future does arise ...... :) Pedro :  Chat   08:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! :D Redrocketboy 08:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: If you transclude Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfA and RfB Report instead of one of the tangobot pages, you will get the extra notification that an RfB is in progress. NoSeptember 16:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with would be preferred, as with Pedro I hadn't even realized there was an active RfB before reading the talk page. SorryGuy  Talk  02:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfBs 

message: In Cobi's RfA, there are instances of Supports but written as Opposes as jokes. At least a couple have already been removed. Please make your vote clear which way you to say either support/oppose, to avoid confusion for bcrats. Thanks. Redrocketboy 14:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: !votes are placed in the areas where they are supposed to be, meaning the whole "Support" or "Oppose" prefix is unnecessary, so it doesn't matter what it says. Besides, no crat would ever consider "too many vandal reverts" to be an actual opposition argument that was placed in the wrong place. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even so, I tend to agree with .  It's best to avoid confusion in RfAs.  Even if it is meant as an obvious joke, it confused me for a second, and we wouldn't want that to be a sticking point later on, for whatever silly reason someone could bring up.  Cirt (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I certainly don't think entire RfAs should run with nothing but joke !votes ("Support Uses Fair Use images in the User namespace. ~~~~"), but I was mentioning more the exact concern that it would confuse the bureaucrats, which it wouldn't (I consider such concerns more valid on language-independent projects, like Commons or Meta, where the preceding bold phrase is much more important and a joke really is likely to be confusing).That said, I try to make my joke !votes as outrageous as possible to eliminate confusion; I think I've "opposed" because an editor had under 50,000 edits before. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about "Oppose. [Candidate] sucks." in the support section? :) J-ſtanTalkContribs 17:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  You oppose me because I wore my Thursday underwear on Saturday :) Spebi 04:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I supported you for that. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for stamping out this bit of whimsy before it catches on. Sure, it looks like folks having a bit of fun, but I suspect that this is only the first step in a reversal of values, which will surely lead to untold chaos and, no doubt, the death of God. Also, the bureaucrats are a fairly dense bunch of editors, and would really have struggled to identify these insincere comments. Your kindness in sparing us this grievous mental anguish is much appreciated. — Dan | talk 17:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All sarcasm aside, why not just save the cajoling and jokes for after an RfA has been completed?  Cirt (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because not everything around here has to be boring as bran flakes. *cut to overdramatic first BJAODN, now this? Where will it all stop? AAAAAH, screaming, running around with head on fire, general carnage* *cough* Because it's harmless. Just don't make joke supports in the oppose column, that's nasty. ~ Riana ⁂ 17:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't we ask some RfA candidates after their RfA has been completed, which they would rather have had in their RfA: A "joke" support, or a well-thought out support with a short comment as to why that editor thinks they should be an Admin?  Cirt (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally liked any joke opposes on my RfA, made a long and stomach-twisty week go a bit easier. That said, I am a sick puppy. ~ Riana ⁂ 17:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the individual RfA candidates don't mind, then I have no real problems with it.  I just thought that they'd appreciate more a well-thought out rationale of support, as opposed to a quip which may or may not really say much substantially about the candidate and their qualifications.  Cirt (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's only so much qualification an editor can point out before other supports seem repetitive. J-ſtanTalkContribs 18:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good point, I suppose it would be less of an issue in a "pile on" support situation.  Cirt (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: There is nothing wrong with bran flakes. They are, for example, more exciting than mere corn flakes. (Even if corn flakes do get their own whole article and bran flakes merely a sectional redirect. Oy! Who speedied the bran flakes article?!). Splash - tk 11:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: People need to be sensible enough to 1) recognize humour and 2) not remove other user's comments without asking unless they are clearly vandalism or disruption. RfA can be very stressful. Breaking the tension has its benefits. Sometimes you just run out of news ways of saying, "this user can be trusted with the tools for these obvious reasons." I'd like to think that most of us are bright enough to take a joke. <<Dlohcierekim at work.>>  Cheers, :) MikeReichold  00:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: <<sticking the rest of my interupted at work comment in after edit conflict>>The problem is sometmes we are so intent and abosrbed in all of this that we either misread something or write something that does not come out right. Or a real life interuption occurs (like just now) that affects are comments in some way. <<dlohcierekim at work>>  Cheers, :) MikeReichold  00:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh dear.  Pedro :  Chat   00:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't forget we're working in plain text here. How many times has someone told a joke on the internet and no-one got it? Tell jokes if you really must, but don't say no-one warned you when a bureaucrat discounts your opinion because they didn't get the joke, or thought that you intended to oppose but put it in the wrong section. --bainer (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I love humor in RfAs, and I think it's definitely needed more often in controversial RfAs, which are often large, mud-slinging events where no one says anything funny. However, to get back on topic, I actually find "joke opposes/supports" annoying and sometimes even confusing, especially when you think someone pretended to oppose when in fact they had actually placed their oppose in the support section by mistake (and even worse when they change to "strong oppose" when correcting their oppose: that's not funny). I say keep the humor, but stop the (placed in the support section) "Oppose - user doesn't have 100,000 MediaWiki edits" support/oppose jokes. Acalamari 00:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joke supports/opposes 

message: Firstly, what is the point of this? Why strike neutral until the answer, instead of just waiting until the answer is given? And I thought the extra questions were supposed to be optional? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Yeah, I did that with Husond's RfB, but I don't see the point now. I don't usually ask questions, any way. J-ſtanContribsUser page 21:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pointless really. What I really don't like is "Neutral until questions are answered - if they remain unanswered, I'll oppose". Ridiculous. Redrocketboy 21:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly what got me to thread this post, RRB. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Though I fully plan on answering the questions, I did find the statement to be rather... well, odd. As for the temporary Neutrals, they've never made much sense to me, but whatever floats your boat... EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec'd by fucking4) Whilst agreeing "neutral pending question X" is pointless (one assumes RfA candidates will not need the extra prompt to answer a question) additional questions are probably the least "optional". One assumes that anyone asking a question is looking for a response to judge wether to support or oppose a candidate, and therefore the candidate's reply at least should ensure a comment (read vote), good or bad. Pedro :  Chat   21:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: From my viewings of RfA, I believe the first three questions, plus additional questions, are "optional" in name only. After all, if they were truly optional, anyone who didn't answer them wouldn't have to worry about neutrals or opposes. Plus, I think a lot of people may not realize that the questions are optional, and oppose or go neutral because of this. Acalamari 21:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. If someone doesn't answer my two questions I'll oppose, pretty much (given I ask them on the first day, they should have plenty of time). The additional questions are "optional" only that you can choose not to answer them, but the fact that you will do will lead to opposes. Daniel 22:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it would be more realistic if we re-tagged the default questions as "initial questions", since I think everyone agrees that "optional" is hilariously inaccurate. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I call my two questions "additional", and I support what Rdsmith4 says above. Daniel 23:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The optional questions I lifted off a long string of previous users (User:Dlohcierekim/questions) came with the disclaimer, "They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like." They were, I guess, more optional than some of the more current sets. Cheers,    Dlohcierekim  16:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral until answers question